Evolution and Theism

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam
No, we don't know all possible parameters. However, we do know those five points I outlined above. I personally don't know much at all about the parameters of aerodynamics, nor the parameters involved with the durability of the human body, but I know I'll most likely die in a messy way if I leap from the top of a forty-level building. In other words, we know enough to have a fair degree of certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

I don't know much either (I admit) But you always judge a man by his questions. I'll be sure to get in-depth with this science stuff once I get to undergraduate and graduate study.

Please explain how ego comes into the matter at all. Also please explain what we humans are inferior to.

We are inferior period.

What? You don't accept humans are inferior? :bugeye:

Indeed, now and then we find ourselves able to quantify matter down to smaller and smaller scales. This does not indicate anything except that our science is improving.

Agreed. Also it shows us Human limits.

Please show me where exactly on that website there is evidence of the ID theory growing.

Ok, go here then Evolution Revolution

2) That's why theories of the Big Bang involve incredible density.
5) Again, inferior to what?

Inferior to many things. Do you accept human limits? Or no? Are we limitless?

Once you answer that you will understand how inferior we are.

Great, but what caused such incredible density to explode??

Actually we can do more than theorise. Mass*Acceleration=Force is well proven, as are many other theories.

It is still theorising, we don't know for SURE dark matter exist and so on. It was "put" into there to validate the Big Bang Theory. All we can do is observe through a telescope, we can't get empirical proof (as in experiments).

Absolutely. We have for thousands of years been learning, and we know more of the nature of the universe now than ever before. I see no reason why that trend would not continue.

Hahaha, no, we don't know completely the nature of the universe. The more we know, the less we know of what we don't really know.

Knowledge is limitless.

How can you say this may lead to "how we might understand the origin of the universe?"

Sorry, I accept the limitations of humans, we will never reach such an intelligent potential to understand the origin of the universe.

Will an ant ever understand the Wall Street?

Now relate it to humans and the universe.

We only know what it looks like and how it partially behaves and so on. Just like how ants see people moving around and know there is a Wall Street by observing (haha, excuse the pun )

Do you agree with me? Or you let your human ego embrace what you beleive of humans?

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

If you wish to see which molecules have been found out in space, please have a look here.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

We are inferior period.
What? You don't accept humans are inferior? :bugeye:

You see, that is not what we call a logical declaration or statement. It's exactly the same as me saying "The sky is chocolate pudding, period." Is there no reason whatsoever for this belief of yours?

Ok, go here then Evolution Revolution

I'm sorry, that link shows a terrible state of affairs for education in the USA. Let's have a look at a couple of paragraphs...

Intelligent design movement gains ground. Proponents of intelligent design theory, or ID, argue that there is irreducible complexity in the living world that cannot be explained by evolution. In public debate, they generally avoid using religious references, but "intelligent designer" may be implicit for God. Their arguments echo the ideas of Natural Theology, which fell out of favor among most scientists in the mid-19th century. In 1991, ID proponent Philip Johnson, a Harvard-trained professor of law at UC Berkeley, writes the popular Darwinism on Trial, which helps catalyze a growing movement.

First, this paragraph shows nothing to indicate that ID is increasing in popularity. The first sentence makes the claim with no evidence. The rest of it only says "ID theorists claim such and such".

Kansas drops evolution from school curricula. In a vote of 6-4, the members of the state board of education vote to drop evolution from their list of required science topics. Also struck from the list are the "Big Bang" and all references to Earth as billions of years old. Steve Abrams, one board member voting with the majority, argues that teaching intelligent design theory (ID) as an alternative to Darwinism doesn't depend on religious belief. School board elections the following year draw lobbyists and funds from around the nation and international media attention. In February 2001, the newly elected board reverses the anti-evolutionist decision.

This demonstrates what happens when theists get involved in education. They tried to eliminate knowledge and replace it with mysticism. Luckily the decision was reversed.

Inferior to many things. Do you accept human limits? Or no? Are we limitless?
Once you answer that you will understand how inferior we are.

I believe we humans have limitless potential. I believe the further into the future we go, the more likely we will be capable of anything we can imagine. After all, our progress thus far demonstrates that our abilities increase with time.

Again, you have provided not a single reason for claiming we are inferior, nor have you stated what we are inferior to.

Great, but what caused such incredible density to explode??

I hope JamesR wor Crisp or Thed will respond to this point, as they know far more about it than I do.

Sorry, I accept the limitations of humans, we will never reach such an intelligent potential to understand the origin of the universe.

Do you have some reason for saying this?

Or you let your human ego embrace what you beleive of humans?

Again, I ask you to explain how "ego" comes into this at all.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam

You see, that is not what we call a logical declaration or statement. It's exactly the same as me saying "The sky is chocolate pudding, period." Is there no reason whatsoever for this belief of yours?

It's not a belief, it's fact.

Why is it that we live for such a short time?
Why do our bones break so easily?
There is a limit on our brain's potential. Our minds can only think so fast.

We are limited, you agree on that right?

I can go on and on about how inferior we are.

I'm sorry, that link shows a terrible state of affairs for education in the USA. Let's have a look at a couple of paragraphs...

www.pbs.org isn't a creditable source??

I believe we humans have limitless potential. I believe the further into the future we go, the more likely we will be capable of anything we can imagine. After all, our progress thus far demonstrates that our abilities increase with time.

Sorry buddy, get rid of that fantasy of yours. Yes, our abilities do increase with time, but as we gain more and more abilities they increase slower with time.

A good analogy is this, say you practice tennis, of course when you first start out you make big improvements and your ability grows fast. but as you get better and better you will reach a limit. You do agree with this right?

Now apply it to how much we can learn. Can any single man hold all the knowledge in the world? Sure he can read and read, but there is so much knowledge he'll never be able to know everything that has been known so far.

That's why we need computers to help us with our inferiority.

Again, you have provided not a single reason for claiming we are inferior, nor have you stated what we are inferior to.

How can you possible think humans are limitless? Imagination is limitless but not humans. We have physical limits, mental limits, and so on.

What you are refering to I'm guessing, is human imagination. Einstein did say imagination is better than knowledge, but just because we can imagine this and that doesn't make us "limitless"

Do you have some reason for saying this?


Again, I ask you to explain how "ego" comes into this at all.

We have mental limits. Why can't we find the exact decimal place of pi? Is our math limited too? hmmm....

You believe humans are limitless, that's your ego, and we aren't buddy.

Why don't you try to build a perfect sphere, once you do, I'll believe that we aren't limitless.

No such thing as perfection for humans. Only in your imagination and imagination is limitless, not humans.

There are many flaws with humans, correct? Do these flaws make us inferior or superior??

 

[Avatar]

Well, there are parameters. I need someone here who is an expert and very well-educated to answer such claims as...

oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly

carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: insufficient greenhouse effect

ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would become too low
if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv radiation at surface

And so on, there are many many parameters. Check the link at my very first post considering those parameters. Are they just voodoo science? Or they make sense. (they only problem I have is where the hell did he get those numbers, he could have exagerated quite a bit.) - that is why i'm asking people's opinion here.

Those are parametres for an earth like life and even not all.

if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowl

to some bacteria oxygen causes instant death. Also the deep deep ocean creatures don't use oxygen. There simply aint any.

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: insufficient greenhouse effect

Here you are refering to the temperature level. Did you know there are bacteria living in nuclear waste and in hot sulphur streams where was thought tht no life could exist.

And so on, there are many many parameters.

these are parameters for mamals nothing else. there are creatures right here on earth who would feel quite comfortable in your "extreme" conditions. And scientists also think tht life is not obligatory carbon based in our universe. There may also be a different kind of life. Maybe silicium based, who knows. And if these "extreme" conditios remained on some planet with sufficient period of time , this primitive life we have on our own earth may develop and evolve and who knows, maybe after a few billion years inteligent life would evolve and their scientists developing theories tht life can only exist in temperatures above +90 C and only if it has atleast 60% of methan in its atmosphere.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

It's not a belief, it's fact.
Why is it that we live for such a short time?
Why do our bones break so easily?
There is a limit on our brain's potential. Our minds can only think so fast.
We are limited, you agree on that right?
I can go on and on about how inferior we are.

Be careful with the word "fact", I think.
1) We live for quite a long time actually, compared to many creatures.
2) Our bones are very tough an flexible compared to many things in nature.
3) How exactly do you know there is a limit to the human brain's potential? What is that limit? Will chemical or genetic alterations never increase the speed of brain functions?
4) No, we are not limited. We are developing right now the capacity to improve ourselves in ways never before possible, through genetic engineering.

www.pbs.org isn't a creditable source??

PBS is fine by me. But as I pointed out, that particular page had no useful, relevent information on it. It had only what I quoted in my earlier post.

Sorry buddy, get rid of that fantasy of yours. Yes, our abilities do increase with time, but as we gain more and more abilities they increase slower with time.

Please demonstrate some evidence for this. Anything will do.

A good analogy is this, say you practice tennis, of course when you first start out you make big improvements and your ability grows fast. but as you get better and better you will reach a limit. You do agree with this right?

Please demonstrate this "limit" idea of yours with regards to individual expertise. Is there actually any evidence that we cease improving at some point?

Can any single man hold all the knowledge in the world? Sure he can read and read, but there is so much knowledge he'll never be able to know everything that has been known so far. That's why we need computers to help us with our inferiority.

Fair enough, no human knows everything. Now name one computer than holds all the data in the world.

How can you possible think humans are limitless? Imagination is limitless but not humans. We have physical limits, mental limits, and so on.

Again, our evolution and technology always raise those limits. Maybe we will some day be able to make, as you say, a perfect sphere.

Again, how does ego come into speculation and hope about the future?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam

Be careful with the word "fact", I think.

Yea you "think" - imagination

1) We live for quite a long time actually, compared to many creatures.

Yea we are supeiror over many creatures, but if we are so "superior" why does a turtle live longer than us WITHOUT the aid of medicine, technology, etc. This makes us inferior to them right?

2) Our bones are very tough an flexible compared to many things in nature.

Yea many things but not all things, we are still inferior here.

3) How exactly do you know there is a limit to the human brain's potential? What is that limit? Will chemical or genetic alterations never increase the speed of brain functions?

Can you finish 100 math problems in 1 second? Point taken, we are inferior in mental capacity and processing ability. We are inferior here once again.

4) No, we are not limited. We are developing right now the capacity to improve ourselves in ways never before possible, through genetic engineering.

That's fantasy to be able to create the "perfect" genetic human being. He will still be inferior.

I'm interested in what you are imagining. What is the "perfect" genectic human, so superior? Will you even consider it a human?

PBS is fine by me. But as I pointed out, that particular page had no useful, relevent information on it. It had only what I quoted in my earlier post.

PBS is consistent with telling the truth.

Please demonstrate some evidence for this. Anything will do.

Sure, we rapidly discovered water (its structure, etc.) and then newton and many other scientists learned about gravity and we pretty much excelled in learning everything on earth. This knowledge quickly sprouted up.

Now look at us, we slowly find new "discoveries" our last frontier is space and for the most part, all we can do is observe through a telescope, no longer can we experiment, will we ever be able to actually experiment on "dark matter"?

Look how slow our progress is now.

Please demonstrate this "limit" idea of yours with regards to individual expertise. Is there actually any evidence that we cease improving at some point?

Did you take Calculus? Ever heard of limits? Graph: y = 1/x

Look at the graph good. We know the limit is y=0 and x=0, the graph is constantly approaching x=0 and y=0

Will the graph EVER reach zero? NO

Can it keep improving towards zero? Infinitely it can improve, but the improvements towards 0 gets smaller and smaller and smaller, keep going...

Same thing goes for us, correct?

Of course we can keep improving, but we should also know there is a limit to how much we can improve.

Fair enough, no human knows everything. Now name one computer than holds all the data in the world.

Why did you ask me this? Who cares.

The point I'm trying to make is we need computers to support our brain capacity and processing abilities.

Ever heard of quantum computers? They are amazing.

Again, our evolution and technology always raise those limits. Maybe we will some day be able to make, as you say, a perfect sphere.

Graph: y = 1/x

Again, we won't be able to reach "perfection" - that's impossible, I know this through math.

Again, how does ego come into speculation and hope about the future?

You are insistent on the potential of humans being limitless, we aren't limitless, but I accept we have great great potential, yet realize the fact of our limits.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Avatar


Those are parametres for an earth like life and even not all. to some bacteria oxygen causes instant death. Also the deep deep ocean creatures don't use oxygen. There simply aint any.
Here you are refering to the temperature level. Did you know there are bacteria living in nuclear waste and in hot sulphur streams where was thought tht no life could exist. these are parameters for mamals nothing else. there are creatures right here on earth who would feel quite comfortable in your "extreme" conditions. And scientists also think tht life is not obligatory carbon based in our universe. There may also be a different kind of life. Maybe silicium based, who knows. And if these "extreme" conditios remained on some planet with sufficient period of time , this primitive life we have on our own earth may develop and evolve and who knows, maybe after a few billion years inteligent life would evolve and their scientists developing theories tht life can only exist in temperatures above +90 C and only if it has atleast 60% of methan in its atmosphere.

Thank you for the gold information.

I'm ignorant, YES I admit it!! So I need to learn alot more

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by James R
I thought I was. My dragon example is precisely analogous to your God example re Pascal's wager. See my point?

Ok ok, if you insist on joking. I'm trying to be sincere.

What's the purpose of a rock? What's the purpose of a particular grain of sand on a beach in the Bahamas? What's the purpose of Mar's moon Phobos?

Purpose of a rock is to exist. Purpose of the grain of sand on a beach is to contribute to the rest of the sand, thus we call it a beach.

You see it's rather subjective, so we are both right, it depends on the perspectives.

That's not an established scientific principle.

I know, but most people "believe" so.

Well then it won't mean much to you if I tell you that I see no evidence of a creator in radiation physics. Yet, strangely, it seems to mean something to you when your friend tells you he does see such evidence. Why is that, do you suppose?

Interesting. Who would you trust more? Your friend or someone on the internet??

But I get your point, I'll study about it myself and conlcude what I think of it.

Oh? Why did you quote the "old" estimate then, if you have a newer, more accurate one?

I don't have it, but I'm positive other scientists do.

Oh, by the way, I made a mistake. The number of stars in our galaxy is actually estimated to be 400,000,000,000 (400 billion). With a 0.001% chance of life for each one, that would give 4,000,000 (4 million) life-bearing planets in our galaxy.

I've read a more detailed recent analysis of this which concluded there could be around 500,000 life-bearing planets in our galaxy.

I see, no use arguing now, I have little proof of my claims, the best I can do is figure it out on my own. Can you reference that more recent analysis?

btw, do you subscribe to any scientific magazines?

Thanks for all the insight though

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev
But is there not evidence for such "poofing"?

There is no evidence or evidence. But based on what we already know, poofing is impossible...based on what we don't know......

Why shouldn't it?

That's a good question also

What caused this "something"?

Don't know. Maybe it was "just there"

I find fallacies to be usefull. I am sorry if I misinterpreted you - you said:

Very useful in fact, but they don't necessarily disprove God (as some atheists like to assume)

I should consider it a favor if you point out any fallacies I commit.

Thank you for making such an open-minded statement. Feel free to point out any errors I make also.

I completely agree with you - I seek truth also, always.

Sorry. We don't know each other, and you cannot see my reactions.

Usually, I am grinning as I type. I have a very thick skin - which makes it difficult for others to offend me and easy for me to offend others.

Same applies to me, "think skin" if you may call it.

Umm, ah, I don't think so? Perhaps you could expand on this a bit more?

Infidels - I like this site and the ID sites, I just need to read more and more.

Plasma theory? Sorry, I'll have to google and get back on that - however, I don't think that the big bang is inconsistant with the WAP.

Plasma Theory is like a "better Steady State Theory"

It could account for the universe being trillions of years old and also explains the formations of clusters, superclusters, to great walls. Also it states that the universe could be infinite in size. So possibilites of this and that can be ruled out by infinite size and near-infinite time. This poses a great threat to creationists.

Read "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner

It was published in 1992, so lots of his criticism of the Big Bang has been refuted (but in his time they pose a serious threat to the theory)

I kinda like the idea of the Plasma Theory better...but I need alot more research on it (undergraduate to graduate study) to actually make intelligent comments to support it. My science teacher embraces this theory over the Big Bang.

One problem with the Big Bang I don't like is, the universe is about twenty billion years old? How did superclusters and great walls form? Thed told me the Big Bang doesn't try to explain that, but it would take hundreds of billions of years for such superclusters to form.

You seem to crave absolute certainty...I do not think that such a thing exists. In fact, I know it does not.

Thus, I do not think certainty is necessary for athiesm.

In the mind they do, reality? never

Aye, such is the way of science.

Science is wonderful

I am a skeptic. I have yet to see evidence for God. I do, however, see evidence for chance.

I'm a skeptic also, but the difference between us, I see is faith. I rest something on faith. You don't rest anything on faith.

To be absolutely clear, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth or imply anything, but you do realize that evolution is not pure chance, right?

Yes, you did not put words in my mouth because you asked a question about it first. I'm glad you did that.

Yes, evolution is not chance, but it relies on Random Genetic Drift then natural selection may do it work.

Even evolution relies on chance.

Oh, I am not so sure. I admit of the possibility that a God or Gods might exist.

I admit to the possibility also, but I embrace the possibility of one God.

Caricituring an argument in order to attack it. Another fallacy.

I see, thank you

Why? All veiws change over time, they grow, they evolve....

Why set such strict standards? Democracy means somthing different today than it did 200 years ago, do you agree?

If we don't have an absolute, who's to say who's right?

The US Supreme Court is the law's "absolute" nothing can argue against it (once they make their decision).

Do you see the point? Since we do not have an absolute for atheitism no one is right on the view, the argument becomes perpetual.

I like these discussions, so far this forum has the most intelligent people I have encountered so far (via internet )

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

In your last few posts you have written only your opinions. You have suppled no evidence for these theories you present. You have not answered any of my questions, nor produced demonstrations when requested. I, however, have produced evidence and logic which has successfully nullified all your opening propositions, bar those I have left for the physics experts; this has left you posting opinion with no logical basis or evidence. Quite simply, I have no more desire to set about writing long posts full of evidence and such as I have been, unless you actually repsond in kind and supply some form of evidence and support rather than merely opinions.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam
In your last few posts you have written only your opinions. You have suppled no evidence for these theories you present. You have not answered any of my questions, nor produced demonstrations when requested. I, however, have produced evidence and logic which has successfully nullified all your opening propositions, bar those I have left for the physics experts; this has left you posting opinion with no logical basis or evidence. Quite simply, I have no more desire to set about writing long posts full of evidence and such as I have been, unless you actually repsond in kind and supply some form of evidence and support rather than merely opinions.

Weehee, the opinion argument again!

Most of it is not my opinion, but feel free to quote them and point out where I am wrong.

Look up Neuro-Linguistic Programming - this structures how the human mind works.

Common sense

"no logical basis or evidence"? Ya right, humans are "limitless"?? Where's your evidence? I gave plenty examples and even used Calculus to demonstrate what limits really are.

How can humans be limitless when even MATH IS LIMITED?!

Do not try to illegitimize me with this crap. Yes you did "nullify" my opening propositions, but you were redundant in doing so because Xev and James already had. Why did you act so redundantly?

Also I accepted how I was mistaken.

Don't try to depict me out to be the "idiot" here, I merely want to learn, is there something wrong with that? Why you think I asked questions and posted information, I wanted to see if the scientists articles I read were right or not. And they (the scientists) aren't right, I seek truth. People were glad enough to show me the truth.

But people like you show me the truth then criticize me, funny.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

Again, I invite you to post any form of evidence or support for your claims/opinions. Go back thorugh my posts and find the places where I suggest you find some form of support for these ideas of yours, and try to respond with evidence.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam
Again, I invite you to post any form of evidence or support for your claims/opinions. Go back thorugh my posts and find the places where I suggest you find some form of support for these ideas of yours, and try to respond with evidence.

ummm why would I need to if I AGREE WITH YOU??!?!?!

By ~The_Chosen~

WOW You must be quite an intellect also. Are you a scientist/biologist or something of that sort?

As for those claims, you rebunked them alright, with all those links - I'll make sure I'll read them. The problem with that article is it was published in 1993.

Alright Adam, you've convinced me more about evolution!!

Ok, as for that, what else you want me to address? What ideas? Be more specific.

You see you saying "our evolution and technology always raise those limits. Maybe we will some day be able to make, as you say, a perfect sphere" already implied alot about you to me.

We will never be able to make a perfect sphere, you dont recognize human limits because of your little fantasy that is driven by your human ego.

Now, since I provided the proof of me accepting some of your claims. Provide me with proof of how "limitless" humans can possible be.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam
In your last few posts you have written only your opinions.

Last few posts? You sure about that? ONLY opinions??

You have suppled no evidence for these theories you present.

What theories did I explicitly "represent"

If it's about my first post, don't bother I already accepted how it is wrong.

You have not answered any of my questions, nor produced demonstrations when requested.

Alright, what questions?

I, however, have produced evidence and logic which has successfully nullified all your opening propositions, bar those I have left for the physics experts; this has left you posting opinion with no logical basis or evidence.

That was superfluous for you to do so. As for the "opinion" and so on, I AGREED to most of the claims made, so why would I provide evidence against them?

Quite simply, I have no more desire to set about writing long posts full of evidence and such as I have been, unless you actually repsond in kind and supply some form of evidence and support rather than merely opinions.

Alright, be specific, what are you so "bugged" about?

*I may seem arrogant saying this but..

If you want to argue, I'll damn argue. I have alot of experience debating and I follow the Golden Rule, so if you become an ass towards me, don't expect me to play nice also. I have a short fuse and I don't like hypocrites and people that assume.

If you don't know how to debate, go here

Those are just beginning rules, but it can be changed a little to fit whatever is required.

 

[Xev]

There is no evidence or evidence. But based on what we already know, poofing is impossible...based on what we don't know......

The big bang is impossible? How?

Don't know. Maybe it was "just there"

'

But where did it come from?

Very useful in fact, but they don't necessarily disprove God (as some atheists like to assume)

Oh of course not!

Thank you for making such an open-minded statement. Feel free to point out any errors I make also.

I completely agree with you - I seek truth also, always.

We should get along well then.

Plasma Theory is like a "better Steady State Theory"

It could account for the universe being trillions of years old and also explains the formations of clusters, superclusters, to great walls. Also it states that the universe could be infinite in size. So possibilites of this and that can be ruled out by infinite size and near-infinite time. This poses a great threat to creationists.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

I kinda like the idea of the Plasma Theory better...but I need alot more research on it (undergraduate to graduate study) to actually make intelligent comments to support it. My science teacher embraces this theory over the Big Bang.

Interesting, what level are you studying at now? If I may ask!

I'm a skeptic also, but the difference between us, I see is faith. I rest something on faith. You don't rest anything on faith.

You know, that's odd. When I read that, I was going to say that I do take things on faith. The sun will rise tomorrow, that is faith...

But then I realized that I was basing that on evidence, not faith. I can't think of anything I do take on faith.

Groovy.

Even evolution relies on chance.

Right right.

Do you see the point? Since we do not have an absolute for atheitism no one is right on the view, the argument becomes perpetual.

Yep. You should see athiests fight over what athiesm is.

 

[TruthSeeker]

~The_Chosen~,

If it's about my first post, don't bother I already accepted how it is wrong.

You were not and you are not wrong...
They just don't accept it...

Here...
http://www.origins.org/orgs/reasons/designevidenceupdate1998.html
That's perfect. That's the best list of anthropic principles I've ever seen in the internet...

I complement with the Monkey-writing-Shakespeare theory...

Here are some links...
http://www.nutters.org/more-monkeys.html
http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec27.html

I personally like this one...
http://www.megalink.net/~ccs/monkey.htm

Edit: Just after I posted this message the monkey typed "sex"!!
And this too... "TSPFVEOXPAFCGKGMWJDVZVVHSFZGOD"...
Is that a proof of God's existance...?

Love,
Nelson

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev


The big bang is impossible? How?

I said based on what we do know, it's impossible to come from nothing. But we don't know much anyway.

But where did it come from?

Just there

Thanks, I'll look into it.

You'll like what Plasma Theory offers, for an atheist.

Interesting, what level are you studying at now? If I may ask!

At the High School Level, passed AP Physics and AP Calculus...going on to part time college (I want to graduate with my peers! I'm not a dork! )

Great, our discussion has almost ended in this thread. Thanks for all the helpful info, I certainly hope I did not waste your time

I really appreciate it. (hehe woman! you like attention don't you! )

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
~The_Chosen~,



You were not and you are not wrong...
They just don't accept it...

Here...
http://www.origins.org/orgs/reasons/designevidenceupdate1998.html
That's perfect. That's the best list of anthropic principles I've ever seen in the internet...

I complement with the Monkey-writing-Shakespeare theory...

Here are some links...
http://www.nutters.org/more-monkeys.html
http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec27.html

I personally like this one...
http://www.megalink.net/~ccs/monkey.htm

Edit: Just after I posted this message the monkey typed "sex"!!
And this too... "TSPFVEOXPAFCGKGMWJDVZVVHSFZGOD"...
Is that a proof of God's existance...?

Love,
Nelson

LMAO!!! That monkey one was FUNNY!!! HAHAHAHAHA, thanks for the links I'll be sure to look into it.

I appreciate it

So how does evolution explain complexity??? And the chances involved with the genes? That all true?

 

[Ekimklaw]

Another Lazarus thread

Here's another old thread I have revived. Have fun!

-Mike