Genesis and The Big Bang

[Grim_]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Wow... That was... childish in the extreme (and this is coming from a 15 year old who enjoys jokes which involve your mother).

Though it leads me to wonder if you even took the time to do a quick search and find her most recent picture (I did it and it took me like five minutes... Hey dont look at me like that [/feeble attempt at humour]). Also while flaming is annoying this isnt even decent flaming its at the same level of me screaming your face to whatever you say.

[1230abcz]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

 

 

LMFAO, nice one.

 

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

 

 

Actually, yes it does, lol. You looked at her profile to make sure she did what she posted. I doubt she actually looked at your profile though; it was a nice dis though, lol.

 

 

 

 

Edit to Grimdeath: This thread was going great until these two started to duke it out for no reason. A bit sad since I actually enjoyed the debate, but I'll join in on anything. Btw, Grim, your momma is so fat, that when she walked across the TV, you missed three commercials. Oh! Bam!

[Wisp]

 

 

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

 

 

Actually, yes it does, lol. You looked at her profile to make sure she did what she posted. I doubt she actually looked at your profile though; it was a nice dis though, lol.

 

 

 

 

I know your not being serious, but the picture is fron Tan's profile, not hers.

[1230abcz]

 

 

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

 

 

Actually, yes it does, lol. You looked at her profile to make sure she did what she posted. I doubt she actually looked at your profile though; it was a nice dis though, lol.

 

 

 

 

I know your not being serious, but the picture is fron Tan's profile, not hers.

 

 

Oh, well, whatever. Not like I was actually in the argument anyway.

 

And btw, your momma is so fat, that when she jumped for joy, she got stuck. Bam!

[Grim_]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

 

 

LMFAO, nice one.

 

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

 

 

Actually, yes it does, lol. You looked at her profile to make sure she did what she posted. I doubt she actually looked at your profile though; it was a nice dis though, lol.

 

 

 

 

Edit to Grimdeath: This thread was going great until these two started to duke it out for no reason. A bit sad since I actually enjoyed the debate, but I'll join in on anything. Btw, Grim, your momma is so fat, that when she walked across the TV, you missed three commercials. Oh! Bam!

Yeah sorry I tend to [bleep] these things up when i join in :oops: :wall: . But might as well respond... Your mommas so stupid she got stuck in a revolving door.

[1230abcz]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

 

 

LMFAO, nice one.

 

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

 

 

Actually, yes it does, lol. You looked at her profile to make sure she did what she posted. I doubt she actually looked at your profile though; it was a nice dis though, lol.

 

 

 

 

Edit to Grimdeath: This thread was going great until these two started to duke it out for no reason. A bit sad since I actually enjoyed the debate, but I'll join in on anything. Btw, Grim, your momma is so fat, that when she walked across the TV, you missed three commercials. Oh! Bam!

Yeah sorry I tend to [bleep] these things up when i join in :oops: :wall: . But might as well respond... Your mommas so stupid she got stuck in a revolving door.

 

 

Hey now... no need to insult anyone here... There's a thread I just made for that very purpose... *looks around*

[Shiny]

FLAMING TO A MINIMUM. Please - Mrshinyredplanet.

 

Thank you.

[____]

Forget flaming, I think it made it well into the realm of personal attacks. :unsure:

[warri0r45]

If you think about it, though, it's not mathematically improbable, at least it's never been justified as such and there have always been counter arguments such as the mutli-universe theory and the "lottery principle" that I brough up. If you need a refresher, I'm basically arguing that given enough trials (e.g. enough planets), it's not surprising that one should "strike it rich" (e.g. be the habitable zone), even considering how rare striking it rich may be. This can be applied to processes like abiogenesis as well - however rare it may be to develop a protocell from inorganic molecules, considering the number of molecules on different planets all "trying" to become life, it shouldn't be surprising that we're here.

 

The theory of the multiverse: with an infinite amount of universes, anything can happen. Does this mean there's probably a god in one of those universes?

 

As for abiogenesis, that's a leap of faith. There's been no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. There has never been a scientific reenactment of a living cell arising from inorganic material. The only reason this theory exists is because we have no other explanation for the origin of the first cell - which sounds a lot like god of the gaps and an argument from incredulity to me.

 

Until I see abiogenesis and evolution, I will always be as skeptical as I am with religion.

 

False. We have repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis in the lab, proving it's plausible. Well, to be fair it's not perfect and cound do with more evidence, but it's not a god of the gaps argument like the others that have been brought up. Why? Basically it's because we can and have tested it to see if it holds up to what happens in the real world.

 

As for seeing evolution, researchers have seen it happen in E.coli and multiple other species. If you want unequivocal evidence for common ancestry, I've posted some in this thread somewhere. It's irrational to equate evolution and religion. One has plently of evidence, while the other does not.

[Zierro]

False. We have repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis in the lab, proving it's plausible. Well, to be fair it's not perfect and cound do with more evidence, but it's not a god of the gaps argument like the others that have been brought up. Why? Basically it's because we can and have tested it to see if it holds up to what happens in the real world.

 

As for seeing evolution, researchers have seen it happen in E.coli and multiple other species. If you want unequivocal evidence for common ancestry, I've posted some in this thread somewhere. It's irrational to equate evolution and religion. One has plently of evidence, while the other does not.

 

I'm not dismissing them as impossibilities but I would like to see much more evidence if I'm to have any belief in them. As far as I'm concerned, I've seen arguments against evolution that are just as good as the ones for it. I'm not trying to claim evolution is false either, it's just that I don't see sufficient evidence either way to form a judgment which I'm 100% sure of.

 

By the way, I noticed you said they repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis. Not all of them. Accuracy is essential when trying to find out the truth, especially in subjects as murky as theology and the origin of life. I don't see why it's so bad to be skeptical about scientific theories but not with religion.

[warri0r45]

False. We have repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis in the lab, proving it's plausible. Well, to be fair it's not perfect and cound do with more evidence, but it's not a god of the gaps argument like the others that have been brought up. Why? Basically it's because we can and have tested it to see if it holds up to what happens in the real world.

 

As for seeing evolution, researchers have seen it happen in E.coli and multiple other species. If you want unequivocal evidence for common ancestry, I've posted some in this thread somewhere. It's irrational to equate evolution and religion. One has plently of evidence, while the other does not.

 

I'm not dismissing them as impossibilities but I would like to see much more evidence if I'm to have any belief in them. As far as I'm concerned, I've seen arguments against evolution that are just as good as the ones for it.

 

By the way, I noticed you said they repeated some of the steps of abiogenesis. Not all of them. Accuracy is essential when trying to find out the truth, especially in subjects as murky as theology and the origin of life. I don't see why it's so bad to be skeptical about scientific theories but not with religion.

 

You can be skeptical when skepticism is due. I would remind you though that religions offer no evidence for their ideas nor any way to test them while scientific ideas do.

 

Scientific ideas, even abiogenesis, offer a means of self-critique and demand evidence before they're taken seriously. As I've said before, abiogenesis isn't perfect, but at least it has something rather than "god did it" and that's it. Having said that, there's no real way of proving exactly how abiogenesis happened, assuming it did. There are lots of possibilies, some more likely than others, and with time and more research we should be able to figure out the most likely and hopefully even create life ourselves.

 

What are the good arguments against evolution? Let's argue some. The only ones I've come across have been either misinterpretations of what evolution is or misinterpretations of some other science (such as thermodynamics, for example).

[Zierro]

You can be skeptical when skepticism is due.

 

We're always replacing old evidence with new, and that's because of skepticism - people striving for more knowledge instead of just accepting something because it has some evidence supporting it and it's the only thing that we can come up with (argument from incredulity).

 

Scientific ideas, even abiogenesis, offer a means of self-critique and demand evidence before they're taken seriously.

 

Yes and that's a great thing but why should it stop? Like I said, old theories are replaced with new ones all the time. If science has proven anything, it's that you can't be 100% sure of anything. The quantum mechanic double-slit experiment is a good example:

 

The double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because the quantum mechanical behavior it reveals has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles",[12] "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another".

 

What might seem illogical and unrealistic in our macroscopic realm is completely normal on the quantum level. And for argument's sake, I could even use abiogenesis as an example. The prevalent belief used to be biogenesis - living things only come from other living things. But now as you say, there is new evidence proving otherwise (not that I believe it, this is just an example). With new discoveries, which are bound to happen, we'll be forced to rethink concepts which we once took for granted.

 

So when would it be wrong to be skeptical about something? There is always a chance of discovering something new that will blow old evidence out of the waters no matter how sound and convincing that old evidence might seem at the time.

 

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

 

What are the good arguments against evolution? Let's argue some. The only ones I've come across have been either misinterpretations of what evolution is or misinterpretations of some other science (such as thermodynamics, for example).

 

To be honest, I'm not that interested in evolution nor have I done enough research on the topic. This is why I didn't claim if it's true or false. Right now I'm just on the fence and reserving my opinion until I learn more about it.

[Rebdragon]

Zierro, if someone asked you if the earth orbits the sun, would you tell them that we arent 100% sure that's true and that we should be skeptical of that belief?

 

If you're going to admit you don't know anything about the topic at hand, why are you even posting?

[Zierro]

Zierro, if someone asked you if the earth orbits the sun, would you tell them that we arent 100% sure that's true and that we should be skeptical of that belief?

 

I never said "everyone must be skeptical of everything", Rebel Dragon. I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to be skeptical.

 

Warrior said to only be skeptical when skepticism is due. Well, what does that mean? People were probably pretty sure of themselves about the earth being the center of the universe. And they had their "evidence" too, or so they thought. Later on that theory was replaced with a better one. If the mentality back then was to not be skeptical as long as something has "evidence" then we might not have discovered the truth about our planet's position in the universe. When you keep digging for more, you're bound to find better answers than what you had before. I believe everything should be questioned.

 

And my main reason for posting this is because of all the people who go berserk when someone questions their theories. I'm not saying that we should throw them all into the trash - I'm saying we shouldn't engrave them into stone. And also you're reading into it too much with the 100% thing. Obviously there will be some things you can be 100% sure of, such as math equations. We're talking about scientific theories though.

 

If you're going to admit you don't know anything about the topic at hand, why are you even posting?

 

There are two different topics. The first is skepticism and the second is evolution. I said I didn't know much about evolution, but the majority of my post isn't really about evolution at all.

[assassin_696]

Yes and that's a great thing but why should it stop? Like I said, old theories are replaced with new ones all the time. If science has proven anything, it's that you can't be 100% sure of anything. The quantum mechanic double-slit experiment is a good example:

 

The double-slit experiment has been of great interest to philosophers, because the quantum mechanical behavior it reveals has forced them to reevaluate their ideas about classical concepts such as "particles",[12] "waves", "location", and "movement from one place to another".

 

Yeah yeah let's not bring quantum mechanics "weirdness" into this. It's just a second order partial differential equation for Christ's sake. People have over-interpreted the hell out of it for way too long, yes it's weird but it doesn't invalidate Newton's or Einstein's laws, it just improves them in certain cases.

 

Evolution is a completely different kettle of fish. Like warri0r said i'm all for skepticism when it's due but I don't even think i'm putting my neck out when I say that evolution by natural selection will never, ever be disproven. It might be modified, heaven knows it's come a long way since Darwin but the basic process is scientific fact. I'm almost getting a little tired of how pedantic scientists are willing to admit they are when it comes to these things. I know that technically evolution is still a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word but it's not helping its case when there is as much compelling evidence for it as gravity, or anything else we just know to be true.

[Jes]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Wow... That was... childish in the extreme (and this is coming from a 15 year old who enjoys jokes which involve your mother).

Though it leads me to wonder if you even took the time to do a quick search and find her most recent picture (I did it and it took me like five minutes... Hey dont look at me like that [/feeble attempt at humour]). Also while flaming is annoying this isnt even decent flaming its at the same level of me screaming your face to whatever you say.

Do you really think I have the time to do that? It wasn't even a recent picture, it was at the beginning of that thread. I got bored and looked through it. I'm not like you.

[Jes]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

Yeah, you looked at his profile to see if I looked, which I have before. That's not a basic insult, that's a burn, and I wasn't specifially going on that thread to look for you, I just saw your picture because it's at the beginning of the thread, You specifically went on his page to see where I've been going when. You're the stalker.

[Wisp]

Actually, I looked on his profile because I wanted to see if there was actually anything there that could say his gender. I noticed that it said that you had last visited it at a certain time, and then realized it proved you were lying.

Then, instead of actually adding anything to your argument you countered with "oh btw you look like a guy".

[Seraphi]

I think calling Doom a stalker is a bit extreme?

She looked at a profile page with some information on it. That MUST mean that she has an unhealthy obsession with you.

[Zierro]

I noticed that it said that you had last visited it at a certain time, and then realized it proved you were lying.

 

It only shows a person's last visit, not all of their visits.

 

Yeah yeah let's not bring quantum mechanics "weirdness" into this. It's just a second order partial differential equation for Christ's sake. People have over-interpreted the hell out of it for way too long, yes it's weird but it doesn't invalidate Newton's or Einstein's laws, it just improves them in certain cases.

 

Whoa, didn't mean to offend you. I just needed an example of old theories being replaced.

 

Like warri0r said i'm all for skepticism when it's due but I don't even think i'm putting my neck out when I say that evolution by natural selection will never, ever be disproven.

 

Yeah... that isn't putting your neck out because what is "proven" and what is "disproven" is an opinion. There are many people who already think evolution is disproven. You're really just saying, "I will never be convinced that evolution is false." So if new evidence comes up that contradicts evolution and you just ignore it, then you'd still technically be right because, in your eyes, evolution has not been "disproven".

[Skull]

I just realized I can't stand about 50% of TIF. Which is sad since I only dislike about about 10% of the people I know in real life.

 

Just thought I'd contribute to the flow of unrelated off-topic [cabbage] that's flowing into this topic.

[Saru Inc]

[hide=]

And there's not a chance I've looked at it before. Damn, you're worse than a myspace stalker. Oh, and btw I thought you were a guy at first, and that was after I saw your picture.

Because you know, looking at a someone else's profile totally means I'm stalking you.

Good work going down to basic insults. You compare me to a stalker, and then you insult me by saying you looked at my picture? Nice.

Yeah, you looked at his profile to see if I looked, which I have before. That's not a basic insult, that's a burn, and I wasn't specifially going on that thread to look for you, I just saw your picture because it's at the beginning of the thread, You specifically went on his page to see where I've been going when. You're the stalker.

GTFO. Please. Nobody wants you here, you stupid [puncture].

 

ANYWAY. On the topic of Genesis vs. Big Bang. It's not even a good comparison. If I've read everything here right, Genesis is an "idea" (let's call it that) for the origin of the Universe, whereas the Big Bang is a theory to explain the current expansion rate of the Universe.

[/hide]

 

Genesis has just as many facts as the Big Bang. It just depends on how you look at them. Also, the idea of God, cannot be answered scientifically. So do not try to answer it with Science. Science cannot answer everything.

[Omar]

Jes, why are you so mad? You're not convincing anyone. Just state your arguments, it has a better result than flaming and it probably takes a lot less time.

[ElkNight]

 

Genesis has just as many facts as the Big Bang. It just depends on how you look at them.

I call bull [cabbage].

[Zamorakshadow]

As for abiogenesis, that's a leap of faith. There's been no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. There has never been a scientific reenactment of a living cell arising from inorganic material. The only reason this theory exists is because we have no other explanation for the origin of the first cell - which sounds a lot like god of the gaps and an argument from incredulity to me.

 

Until I see abiogenesis and evolution, I will always be as skeptical as I am with religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

 

Scientists don't know how life formed, but they know many ways life could have formed. This is the best model we have so far.

 

Abiogenesis might not have been observed, since it only works on primitive-earth conditions, but our existence is proof that life formed some way, and this is a possible one, especially since Evolution has been observed both in fossil record and in nature.