Evolution - Yes it DID bloody well happen!

WHAT IS PHYSICAL? Tell me what is physical and what is non physical...
What do u mean there is no such system for religious faith? Our church develops and improves as well...

Zero, that is a right name for you, you are a ZERO...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Xelios:

I can't Ignore him, he is now making comprehensive sense. I have an obligation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My being a zero really seems to carry this discussion a mile further. Thank you so much for the Wise and Profound Comment that shall be Treasured by Millions, O Great One.

Physical? Anything that exhibits repeatedly testable properties that are measurable by a certain, predefined standard.

The church develop and improve? That's funny. It seems to be a few centuries behind science in terms of pace and efficiency.

Stop beating around the bush and answer my post. Or not. Doesn't really matter.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Wrong...few of the soil dates around 4.55 billion yrs old, FEW. Hundreds of test is like testing 100 lbs. of soil, not even an acre tested. THER ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES ON EARTH, AND WEIGH MILLIONS OF TONS..
SO GET YOOUR WORDS STRAIGHT, THE RIGHT WORD IS "LESS THAN AN ACRE OF THE EARTH'S SOIL DATES BACK 4.55 BILLION YRS, AND THE REST OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES DATE ARE SPECULATION AND GUESS""

You call that comprehensive sense? Not only is it impossible to date soil using radiometric dating, but the laws of physics demand that the entire planet be formed at the same time. They also demand that the solar system be formed at the same time. You can't have 5 planets form, then 3 billion years later another 4 planets appear. So either our date of 4.55 billion years is accurate, or the entire foundation of physics must be thrown out the window ( a foundation that has withstood tens of thousands of tests ).

Not to mention he has made his own proof for God null and void. Following his logic, we haven't tested every single atom in the universe to see if it was created by God, and so his arguement that God did create everything is pure speculation and guesswork. So as long as he sticks to this stupid idea that we have to date every single square inch of rock on the Earth his proof for God is also not valid, not that it ever was in the first place.

The onus is not on us to prove the Earth really is 4.55 billion years old, that is accepted fact, the onus is on whatsupyall here to prove it isn't.

 

Because the Universe works according to certain laws. Knowing these laws allows us to make certain predictions (such as how quickly a rock will fall when dropped). Scientists did not haphazardly select rocks at random when trying to determine the age of the Earth but used their knowledge of geology and plate-tectonics to determine where the oldest parts of the Earth would be. They then started searching for the oldest samples they could find. This was a diligent and deliberate process.

You must also understand that the samples that were taken were only small pieces of huge masses of rock (continental plates). Like taking a tiny slice from a piece of cake. Once you've examined all the parts of that slice and figure out how old they are you don't have to keep examining every crumb to know how old it is. You can be pretty damm sure it's all the same age.

The findings also match other known facts of geology, cosmology, astrophysics, etc. They also match findings regarding the Moon, comets, the Sun, and other features of the Solar System. Have they tested everything? No. But when all of the evidence is pointing to the exact same answer it is simply ignorant to reject that answer. Just as you would call a person stupid who continually smashed his head with a hammer because he refused to believe it would hurt the next time he did it.

You couldn't be more wrong. Science guarantees that faith is not required. Science is performed and written about in such a manner that if you do not believe the results you can try it and find out for yourself. Science is absolutely rigorous about this. In fact, an article will be rejected for review if it does not address its own areas of weakness. A scientist cannot simply claim to have an answer, it is absolutely essential that they explain exactly how and why they achieved that answer.

You don't understand probabilities whatsup. You continually demonstrate your ignorance of the topic.

Actually, this explains a lot. Rather than understanding science you are simply accepting on faith those scientific findings that your religion agrees with. This is neither necessary nor proper regarding science. Science does not rely upon faith.

~Raithere

 

Whatsupall:

"Wrong...few of the soil dates around 4.55 billion yrs old"
Ok, your right, I should have been consistent about saying "MOST soil from earth that we have tested" instead of "most soil". But I could say that the number of humans that we have seen is also few, and by your reasoning we couldn't then say that most humans have ears.... That is the reason I included the other question about ears, because I know we agree on it. I also know that those two questions use the EXACT same reasoning to reason out why.

"INDEED BELIEVING SUCH SPECULATION IS CALLED FAITH"

Most people would call "SUCH" speculation, inductive reasoning. What IS a fact is that FEW people would be willing to take you through this inductive reasoning step by step. Contrary to what anyone may think, the human mind reasons with amazing speed. The following inductive reasoning my only take a few seconds to reason, yet be quite lengthy on paper:

Fact: 100s of the soil samples have been dated
Fact: ALL dating tests for soil on earth have been dated to around 4.55 billion years old.
Fact (reasons): soil samples have been taken from every continent and from every available environment.
Fact (reasons): Soil samples from the same environment have been dated to the same date
-- Therefore: (INDUCTIVE REASONING): Soil samples have been tested from diverse enough sources to be representative of the entire earth (not counting core where newly made material would date far less than 4.55 billion)
Therefore: The entire earth can be represented as 4.55 billion years old, because all dating tests in the representative samples from earth have been reproduced 100s of times and all dated at 4.55 billion years.

This whole process takes only a few seonds to rationalize, but an entire paragraph to write out.

"WHAT IS PHYSICAL? Tell me what is physical and what is non physical...
What do u mean there is no such system for religious faith? Our church develops and improves as well..."

Physical is something tangible, something that can be measured. When he says there is "no such system" in religion, it is that things tend not to be contested in religion. If the bible says something, it is not contested.

 

Odd. I thought that the catholic church accepted evolution and the proper age of the earth.

I go to a catholic school, and they teach biology and such properly.

 

I KNOW IM RIGHT...

THERE IS FAR MORE ROCKS ON EARTH THAN HUMANS, AND ONLY ABOUT 100 TEST HAVE BEEN DONE...THERE ARE ONLY 5 BILLION PPL ON EARTH, PROBABLY LESS THAN 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % COMPARED TO THE NUMBERS OF ROCKS IN SOIL...I HAVE SEEN MORE THAN 100,000 PEOPLE IN MY LIFE, FROM TV, TO SCHOOL, TO MAGAZINES, ETC. AND THEY ALL HAVE EARS....AND IF I HAVE SEEN FEW OF THEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE EARS, I CANNOT APPLY THAT TO BILLIONS AFTER BILLIONS AND SAY THEY ALL DONT HAVE EARS....YOUR ILLOGIC OTHERWISE....

A SPECULATION AND FEW EVIDENCE IS INDUCTIVE REASONING? IN THAT CASE, THEN GOD WHO HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE IS "SUPER INDUCTIVE REASONING"...

What is tangible? Explain....Atoms wasnt detected 100 yrs ago, so was it non-physical then all of a sudden it became physical?...Sub-atomic particles wasnt detected until lately, so was it non-physical then all of a sudden it became physical? Blackhole wasnt detected before Einstein, is blackhole then non-physical then all of a sudden it became physical?

I cannnot touch, feel, taste, or smell oxygen, everywhere I go, is it then non-physical? How do I know that what I felt isnt something else? WHAT IS AIR? what are the chemicals composed of air? If u say it is composed of oxygen and something else..Can u demonstrate that fact and trap a living creature in a room without air, and then give them the chemicals that makes up air...Can you even completely remove a room of its chemicals and air? IS THAT POSSIBLE? WHEN LIGHT ITSELF WHICH IS SUBATOMIC PARTICLES TRAVELS THROUGH FIBER GLASS WALLS? CANU MAKE A ROOM THAT HAVE NOTHING PHYSICAL ON IT? HAVE THIS BEEN DEMONSTRATED?

Explain Child...

 

You are right, Catholics are open to scientific fields and such. Im just trying to point out to this kid Frencheneez that science also requires faith, some atheist are in denial (the delusional ones), and some already agreed that science requires faith, Indeed..

 

French:

A better word would be rocks, not soil.

In addition to hundreds of terrestrial rock samples from all over the Earth we have also tested several meteorites and rock samples from the moon. These also date to about 4.55 billion years ago. So not only do we have a huge amount of evidence from Earth saying the planet is this old, but we also have evidence from the moon and meteorites; and all point to about the same time. My question to whatsupyall would be; out of all the samples we've tested, why have we not found a single one over 5 billion years old? If the Earth really was 15 billion years old, you would expect to see evidence of this.

A good source to check out:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

And remember, this URL only shows a handful of the tests done.

[edit]Here's another link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

Whatsupall:

"AND IF I HAVE SEEN FEW OF THEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE EARS, I CANNOT APPLY THAT TO BILLIONS AFTER BILLIONS AND SAY THEY ALL DONT HAVE EARS"

No, you can't say that they all don't have ears when you SEE that some of them don't have ears. You CAN, however, take the people you have seen and apply that same PERCENTAGE to the rest of humanity. As long as you haven't had an irregularly low exposure to humans, that reasoning is fine.

This is how it works in science. You get facts, you draw conclusions. When someone's conclusion is false, someone proves it. So when you can find soil that is older than 4.55 years old and reproduce it more than a couple times, youll change the conclusion. It is only the faith in high probability that keeps science up. Many people DO have faith in high probability, yet others of us understand the uncertainty and the acceptance. We ACCEPT that the earth is 4.55 billion years old because there is a ton of evidence for it and no contradictory evidence. We understand that there is the POSSIBILITY that our data is inaccurate or irrelevant, yet there is a LOW PROBABILITY of that being the case. So instead of going with the low probability, we go with the idea that has a high probability of being correct.

If you want to find fallacies in my inductive reasoning, cite specific quotes of mine and analyze them rationally. There is a left out portion of the logic that can change the premise, but I bet you won't find it. Ill wait until you address my logic set to tell you what you missed.

"A SPECULATION AND FEW EVIDENCE IS INDUCTIVE REASONING?"

No. THAT speculation and "few" evidence USED inductive reasoning to prove the speculation. There are speculations that have no base. Speculation is just an idea. That idea might have evidence or it might not.

"Explain....Atoms wasnt detected 100 yrs ago, so was it non-physical then all of a sudden it became physical?..."

I didn't say it has to be detected to be tangeble. It has to be ABLE to be measured. People could have measured atoms 1000 years ago, we just needed the tools and the knowlege. It does not neccessarily have to be able to be measured WITH the current technology. If we will ever be able to measure it, it is NOW tangeble.

 

so WHY DO YOU APPLY THE SMALL PERCENTAGE U TESTED TO THE REST OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS UNTESTED? YOUR CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN WORDS...

FRENCHENEEZ, HOW MANY TIMES DID I PROVE YOUR WORDS WRONG? MANY TIMES, AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THEM...YOUR SELF CONTRADICTORY...

THERE IS FAR MORE ROCKS ON EARTH THAN HUMANS, AND ONLY ABOUT 100 TEST HAVE BEEN DONE...THERE ARE ONLY 5 BILLION PPL ON EARTH, PROBABLY LESS THAN 0. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000001 % COMPARED TO THE NUMBERS OF ROCKS IN SOIL...I HAVE SEEN MORE THAN 100,000 PEOPLE IN MY LIFE, FROM TV, TO SCHOOL, TO MAGAZINES, ETC. AND THEY ALL HAVE EARS....AND IF I HAVE SEEN FEW OF THEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE EARS, I CANNOT APPLY THAT TO BILLIONS AFTER BILLIONS AND SAY THEY ALL DONT HAVE EARS....YOUR ILLOGIC OTHERWISE....

WHAT IS SO HIGH OF A PROBABLTY OF YOUR TESTS? ARE YOU DELUSIONAL? (LOL, ACTUALLY I KOW U ARE). THE PROBABILITY OF YUR RESULT IS 1 TO 1,000,000,000. WHAT IS SO HIGH PROBABILITY ABOUT THAT? ARE YOU OK? GOT MILK? WHAT IS THE HIGH PROBABILITY OF TESTING THE DATE OF HALF AN ACRE ON EARTH, THEN SPECULATE AND GUESS THAT THE REST OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES UNTESTED ARE THE SAME DATE?

YOU NEED SOME FORM OF PSYCHIATRIC HELP? IF YOU INSIST THAT IS A HIGH PROBABILITY...THEN I SUGGEST YOU SEE YOUR DOCTOR..

TESTING A FEW SPOTS OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES IS "TONS OF EVIDENCE"? ONCE AGAIN ARE YOU OK? AND AGAIN IF YOU INSIST, THEN I SUGGEST YOU SEE YUR DOCTOR...

AGAIN YOUU NEED TO SEE YOUR DOCTOR...YOU TESTED "SOIL A" (LESS THAN AN ACRE), THE RESULT ARE NOT ACCURATE, ONLY ABOUT "70" %, SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THE RESULT OF THE SOIL U TESTED ARE NOT TRUE...A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT IS UNLIKELY ACCORDING TO YOU...IT DOESNT MATTER, I SAY THE RESULTS ARE 100% ACCURATE, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT...

MEANWHILE "SOIL B" WAS NEVER TESTED (HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES), SO AGAIN YOU DONOT KNOW THE AGE TO THIS, AND U CANNOT APPLY SOIL A'S RESULT TO SOIL B'S RESULT, THATS NOT SCIENCE, THATS A SPECULATION AND A GUESS. YOU CANNOT TEST THE SMALL SPOT AND CLAIM HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES UNTESTED ARE ALSO 4 BILLION YRS OLD, YOU DONOT KNOW THAT, YOUR JUST SPECULATING OK CHILD?

YES LIKE THE ATHEISM, THATS WHY IM A CHRISTIAN...

IF SOMETHING THAT IS PHYSICAL DOESNT HAVE TO BE DETECTED, THEN HOW CAN YOU MEASURE SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT DETECT? YOUR STUPID IDIOT....

 

I think we should all be grateful to Whatsuyall. He is the paragon, the epitome, of ignorance. He shows us clearly why reason and logic are so important. You should all sccept the fact that no matter what you say, no matter what facts or reality you present, he will persist with his delusional ranting. He serves a purpose, in showing us what not to be.

 

Scary

You're reminding me of me, Adam. I'm sure I said that a couple of times in the past about T1 and KB. However, I'm too stoned & lazy to look it up.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

WHAT ARE THE FACTS THAT WAS SHOWN TO ME ADAM? CLARIFY YOUR ACCUSATION...WHAT IS FACT? THAT SPECUULATING AND GUESSING FOR THOSE SOIL UNTESTED ARE FACTS?
TO YOU THEY ARE FACTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS "BELIEF" THAT HUGE BALLS OF SOIL BUMPED INTO EACH OTHER EVERY 15,000 YRS UNTIL EARTH CAME ABOUT, WHICH U CALL THE BIG BANG "THEORY"...
WE ARE IN THE REALM OF THEORIES HERE, THERE IS N0TING THAT ARE FACTS HERE, BUT BUNCH OF SPECULATION AND AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT WITH FEW EVIDENCE...
GET YOUR MIND STRAIGHT YOU KNOW NOTHING OF SCIENCE, YOUR BRAINWASHED IN YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLD, CONFUSING "FACTS" ABOUT "THEORIES"..
YOU KNOW WHAT, LET ME SEE HOW "SMART" U ARE, LETS TALK ABOUT THE "FACTS" OF BIG BANG, ANYWAYS TELL ME ABOUT THE BIG BANG "FACTS", BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY TO YOU BRAINWASHED GUY, TELL ME ABOUT IT....

 

ADAM, IM WAITING...EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE BIG BANG "FACTS"...

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9802/9802057.pdf

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020928/fob1.asp

 

Whatsupyall

I generally come to regret the violations of personal moratoria against engaging certain posters.

However, given that Raithere and I, for instance, will occasionally take a matter of weeks to get back to one another on various topics, I find your haranguing of Adam after 90 minutes to be childish and worthy of ridicule.

The simple fact is that people do sometimes like to stop and read through the links they're posting, so that they know in what context they are informing you. This is a far cry from simply assuming on faith that something says what you think it says.

Understanding the information is generally the smarter way to work. Blind application always looks bad.

I recommend you go way back to the beginning of this topic and give serious consideration to the National Academy of Sciences and their thoughts and conclusions regarding Creationism and Evolution. Well, okay, it seemed easier to just include the link right there for you; I'm happy to reduce the number of mouse-clicks required to get to the information, and thereby hopefully avoid causing you any undue confusion.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions."

Updated December 2, 1997" .

Above is a quote of the webpage u sent me...The Big bang is a THEORY, and the date of earth is also a THEORY, maybe the date of the soil tested is a FACT AND 100% ACCURATE (for the sake of the argument), but earth is NOT about 4 billion yrs old, THATS A SPECULATION AND A GUESS...SO DONT TELL ME THAT IT IS A "FACT", your NOT talking to an atheist here, I know what Im talking about...

You have this MENTAL image is your mind (IMAGINATION) that huge asteroids struck each other every 10,000 years and that is how earth was formed, AND YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN TO ME THE REST OF MAYBE EVEN THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS I CAN POST...Thats why you believe that earth is about 4 billion, BECAUSE OF YOUR IMAGINATION, and your imagination is NOT A FACT....


That is the point I was trying to make Adam child. I call you child because thats what you are in the REAL WORLD.
Your living in the narrow minded world where God dont exist because you say so, all christians are killers, having faith is stupid, etc. the delusional world, the world of atheism..

IN SUMMARY, YOU HAVE STRONG FAITH, ATHEISM REQUIRES STRONG FAITH...But your in denial, you became atheist not because of evidence and logic, BUT YOU BECOME ATHEIST BECAUSE IT IS CONVENIENT AND "IT FEELS GOOD", HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF SATAN? THE FATHER OF LIES? WHO WILL DELUDE YOU WITH LIES AND USE PLEASURE AS HIS WEAPON, AND WITH THAT HE CAN DRAG MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN HELL WITH HIM....



Adam, you actually sent me an honest webpage, IM SURPRISED, after all many people here sends "Postiveatheism.com" or "skeptics.com", and when I check it, its bunch of lies and false accusations and generalizations...
So you gave me a genuine webpages, Im impressed.

 

Recommended reading

• Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. Vintage, 1996.

• Russell, Jeffrey B. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.

I actually recommend any of Jeffrey Burton Russell's books on the Devil or on Evil. He is actually disappointed at their success, in the sense that

It speaks to his credit that people award merit to his proper academic work while forgiving the propaganda.

I agree that atheism involves faith, but one thing you seem to fail to realize, Whatsupyall, is that one of the reasons evolution is such an overwhelming theory, so much more authoritative than faith traditions, is that as the evidence builds the theory, there's only a few ways it can play out. As we learn more and more about the living world and its history, those probable resolutions will reduce even further until they have it. Evolution is a fact. Its exact method is faith. By the standard you're advocating, there is no clear connection between the presence of a brain in a human body and the ability of that body to continue living unassisted. Think about it: we know what the brain does in general. The rest is just working out the specifics.

So is your brain an extraneous lump of matter? I'm actually asking you about yours here. How do you feel about that thing in your head? Is it really that important? I'll reserve the obvious sarcastic jab that could be placed here for reasons of civility. However, I would urge you to consider that there is much we do not know about the brain, but I dare you to rebut the fact that the presence of the brain in a human body is a necessary component of that body's continued survival. How do you know it's not the unquantified "soul" that is the living force, and that brain death and the exit or extinguishing of the soul is merely a random statistical coincidence? Or that brain death is caused by the divorce of soul from body? I mean, maybe the reason that guy who was shot in the head died was that the bullet scared the soul out of the body.

You never know ....

Nonetheless, do some reading about Satan. It's a great history. And twisted. But I think you'll find less to be frightened of in Satan itself than in the people who believe that it exists in any corporeal or influential sense.

Satan is a characterization; don't mistake the mask for the true face, and don't mistake the face for the essence.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS to Adam (edit): Sorry to get in your way here, but issues of the Devil just bug me. The invention of gods to make people feel better is one thing, but the idea of the Devil is part of what wrecked an otherwise reasonable core principle--e.g. Christianity. I have a personal commitment to stamping out stupid superstitions about devils. I've met Satan. He's a nice guy. And we better all pray that he was only in my head.