mikeh Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 If your answer is that God always existed and that these questions are meaningless.... consider.... I would argue that perhaps it is the universe that has always existed, in the sense that time did not exist BEFORE the universe came into existence. I remember this discussion before, if universe always existed, the only thing that makes sense to me is that time is cyclic, and at some point the universe will return to every state it has. The idea of having to live my life making the same stupid mistakes infinite times is not very appealing, but gladly Gerben told me that this is not true, there is randomness in the universe, and not everything is predictable (I don't understand this. It looks contradictory with the way I see time, but Gerben knows more than me, and it also makes a kind of sense, since otherwise after big bang I would had bet the universe would be symetric). If god has left us after creating the universe, I don't know. Maybe. When I see my sister playing SIMs, I feel like she is the God of that micro universe. There are many questions with no answer, why not 5 dimensional space?, why gravitatios attracts and not the contrary?, why these sets of physic laws and not some others?, are they arbitrary?, designed?. But anyway the strongest one to make me believe something is out-there still is: why the universe exists?. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam... if there is something still out there... what is it? And how does it work.. where did IT come from, why does it exist... don't you see that using 'it' as the 'explanation' for 'us' simply pushes the questions out another step? You are answering the ultimate questions by invoking ultimate causes that require further explanation.. that is NOT how occam's razor works :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Hopefully, we know that we are here. (Subjective but reasonable) We are also able to determine the "existence" of a state of nothingness. (Perhaps an illusion but one that we can use as a reference.) Since we "know" that opposites cancel one another (in the mathematical sense) then the presence of nothingness indicates that both opposites may be present. Thus, our presence is indicative of some "other" and opposite presence. Sometimes Occam has a beard, sometimes not. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I see your point now mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 that doesn't help me, helene... why are they not two separate processes? my understanding, which may be flawed, is that macroevolution is that which results in a new species while micro- is that which results in changes within a species... as i said, my understanding may be incorrect... i'm sure someone will correct me as needed Doesn't the information about "ring species" demonstrate nicely how new species evolve?i'll have to read the link provided, i haven't done so yet I noticed you've been reading Pravda, and I was wondering if you had taken the time yet to read about ring species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 i read the pravda article at work and am now on my sis in laws computer... mine should be repaired soon... btw, i wasn't aware that viruses can affect hardware, does anyone know how that's possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 They can misconfigure, overuse/misuse your hard disk. I.e. make the little reader thingies (not sure what they're called) go faster than it can go I think. Then it breaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 i read the pravda article at work and am now on my sis in laws computer... mine should be repaired soon... btw, i wasn't aware that viruses can affect hardware, does anyone know how that's possible? Sorry about your computer. :( I'd like to see some of the jerks who infect others' computers with viruses going to jail for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Certain sequence of commands to your graphics card might burn it. At the university they explaned this as some of the worst things that could happen if you execute data instead of code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 1) when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species? It happens gradually. Think of an experiment: you have a bucket with yellow paint. You add a droplet of red paint to it and stir. Which color is it now? Still yellow of course, you can't notice the difference with the naked eye. What color does it have after you have added a million droplets? Red, obviously. Maybe it was "orange" after 100,000 droplets. Suppose someone asks you: have we ever seen a single droplet changing the color of the paint? No, we haven't. None of the one million droplets left the paint in a qualitatively different color than it was before. Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Good page. Our ancestors had 24 chromosome pairs, but two were fused in humans. The evidence could not be more clear. Nice site also, for eveyone interested in evolution vs. creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Interesting, although it doesn't contain enough information for me to judge it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Interesting, although it doesn't contain enough information for me to judge it. That's one interpretation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Interesting, although it doesn't contain enough information for me to judge it. That's one interpretation... Denial is a terrible thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html is a good starting point Interesting, although it doesn't contain enough information for me to judge it.Are you serious? Or illiterate? If you accept that the authors of that article are telling the truth as they have found it to be, and that the scientists upon whose work they depend also told the truth, then how on earth can you reject the fusion explanation? I read the article and found it to be a model of lucidity. But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Well, let's go with chomosone pairs. We have 23 pairs. Fish don't. Frogs don't. I fail to see how you can 'gradually' go from 23 pairs to 24. What, the species has for a while 23 1/2 pairs? While species may be vague, as far as I know the number of chromosones is not. So name a case where a species with one number of chromosones became a different species with a different number. Sometimes an individual gets four copies instead of two of a particular chromosome, and the two identical pairs then drift apart in subsequent generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition :) I find some paralelism with scientifics reading new testament :). But I didn't read the article (nor new testament for that matter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Denial is a terrible thing. You mean like Denying that God's son came to earth 2000 years ago and changed the known world? :). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Denial is a terrible thing. You mean like Denying that God's son came to earth 2000 years ago and changed the known world? :). More like denying that John XXIII opened Vatican II... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Denial is a terrible thing. You mean like Denying that God's son came to earth 2000 years ago and changed the known world? :D. I think the language barrier is causing you to lose the relevance of the implication. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition ;) I find some paralelism with scientifics reading new testament :D. But I didn't read the article (nor new testament for that matter). One obvious difference between you and me is that I have read both.. now my reading of the new testament was many years ago.. but I did read it.. My rejection of the new testament, and all other religious tracts, is based on a lot of thinking, and a lot of reading, from a wide range of sources. I appreciate that you are young, and that you have been subject to religious conditioning that dulls the ability to think critically about religion.. that is not a criticism of you personally... you have no responsibility for what your family made you learn.. but consider: you express strong pro-religious beliefs while proudly admitting ignorance about the issues. Do you in fact appreciate that there is a difference between believing something and knowing something? If you allow yourself to contemplate that MAYBE religion is misguided, and actually LOOK at the counter-arguments, you may find your faith has been misplaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I think you are unfair to Gonzalo, Mike. Gonzalo says he has thought a lot about the existence of God and came to the conclusion that he believes in God. He writes stuff that is critical of atheism as well as stuff that is critical of (Christian) fundamentalism. Nowhere do I see that he doesn't respect different views. As you know I agree with most of your views on this matter but I am not sure if it is necessarily harmful or even stupid to believe in God as long as the belief is kept from interfering with science. You say that Ocam's razor implies that one should not believe in God since God adds unnecessary complexity to one's worldview. But isn't it somewhat subjective? Suppose some perceives a theist worldview as simpler or at least more sattisfactory/graspable than an atheist worldview, isn't it a valid reason to believe in God? I am not sure since I don't quite understand what the word "God" is supposed to mean, but I suppose to some it could be a valid reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Mike, You "blame" (sorry, this sounds too harsh, but I do not know a better expression)Gonzalo for: you express strong pro-religious beliefs while proudly admitting ignorance about the issues. I guess you make the same mistake over and over again: Religion is about beliving. You cannot prove the God exists. Nor can you prove that he does not exist. Better man then me tried it. See Thomas of Aquin f.e. see many great writers who followed him. Some thought they had been able to proofe his existence. But they all failed. Same is true about the opposite: Do you have a prove, just one that he is non-existent? Read Nitsche, he does not believe and he is very strong in his statement. But where is his prove? He is beliving in non-beliving. Like you. So it really does not matter whether you are ignorant or whether you have written or read a lot about this theme. It does not matter whether or not you make some experiments yourself. You cannot try to "solve" religions in a scientifical way. Sorry, this will not work. You have no prove that there is no God out there and you will never have one. Even when we can prove that there was a big bang, does that not disprove the possibility of a superior being. How could it. And since Heysenberg we know already that we will never know everything about anything at any time. So there will always be a part of luck, surprise, chaos in our world. Maybe this is given by God? Maybe the laws of physics, evolution, and all the rest of our wisdom is given by him? How can you claim the opposite?Well you can. You can claim it. But you cannot test it. So, you may come to the conclusion that God left you- or that you left God. You come to the belive that he does not exists for you. You won't lose any sleep at night about this. But I find it too hard to claim that belivers do belive because they are ignorant or because we have been subject to religious conditioning that dulls the ability to think critically about religion... I do belive and I am not ignorant. I am not as young as Gonzalo and I took my time to understand religions. (I did not succeed in understanding them, but I found my way in one of them.) And don't lets start again a discussion what went wrong and right with or without religion. We had been there before. Not all members of the church are holy. But all are human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Are you serious? Or illiterate? If you accept that the authors of that article are telling the truth as they have found it to be, and that the scientists upon whose work they depend also told the truth, then how on earth can you reject the fusion explanation? I read the article and found it to be a model of lucidity. But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition B) OK, so when a horse and a 'wild' horse mate, how many chromosones do they have? And when this then mates with a regular horse, how many chromosones do they have? And if a 'wild' horse cannot mate with the child of a 'wild' horse and regular horse, how did regular horses evolve from wild horses? Is there anything whatsoever in the article that explains how, if fusion was random and sporadic, how new species could occur? If you have a wild horse that gets genetically altered to a modern horse, it will end up mating with wild horses and the result will either be nothing or wild horse. If through some magical carrier an entire family of wild horses were changed to modern horses within a generation of each other, then sure, you can explain what happened and they'd have fertile children. But that can't happen through random shifts. Something else must be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (whatever that word means) given the evidence we have available now. That doesn't mean that we will never have such proof. Humans are fundamentally emotional rather than rational beings. As such, we have many questions about the universe and our existence in it that cannot (at least at this time) be answered rationally. Yet we hunger for answers. Religion provides them, for some. For others, it does not. So be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.