|
Post by yash3ahuja on Sept 14, 2009 21:51:31 GMT -5
Where'd the energy come from?(Dont say the sun, because then I'll ask where that came from and ...)
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 14, 2009 21:53:14 GMT -5
various sources, yes including radiation from the sun.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 15, 2009 1:02:14 GMT -5
The conditions on earth billions of years ago were very different from today. There were a lot of sources of very high energy, and no atmosphere to block the sun. The theory is that energy was applied to inorganic matter in such a way that organic matter was produced. The support for that comes in lab testing, where they HAVE simulated the conditions they think were present in billions of years ago, subjected inorganic matter to it, and come out with some of the building blocks of life today. Ok, but where did the sources of high energy come from? And where did the sun come from? Has the sun always been there? And not trying to get on you, but I see you saying that "The theory is that energy was applied...." but it seems like your presenting Evolution as fact, but yet you also openly state that it is theory, and again, you say "they think" but if they think, then it is not a fact, it is opinion. And as scientists, they need to recognize that they are fallible, and cannot just parade whatever they "think" as fact. It seems from your answer BM that some people think that something can come out of nothing, if I'm understanding you guys right. But how? Zero cannot equal one. How could the sun have just "been there" at the beginning all those billions of years ago? Shouldn't the sun have a beginning, just like the cell? Science would conclude that the sun is made of atoms as far as I know, so it is related to us in the sense that it is made up of "matter". I guess now my main question to Evolution is: How did the Universe come to be?
|
|
|
Post by yash3ahuja on Sept 15, 2009 1:08:33 GMT -5
^^ this is what I was saying. No proof, hypothetical things. Where'd the stars come from? The big bang. Where'd that come from? 2 balls of mass colliding at extreme speed. Where'd the mass come from? That's why god exists, to explain the unexplained, and as a way to control people. And all this coming from an athiest.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 15, 2009 1:24:38 GMT -5
"So whatever gets you through the night floating your boat while your in a foxhole having sex shouting out OH GOD! That my friends is your ANSWER!"
Alright redwurd, I'm gonna have to vehemently disagree with you on that one, I believe that there is objective truth. And if I may be a bit jocular for a moment.... If anyone tells you that there are no absolutes, then ask him, "are you absolutely sure?", because without knowing it, he has just uttered an absolute statement lol. And I don't think anybody REALLY 100% believes in the statement "there is no right or wrong". If you hear someone say that to you, just steal his car and see if he thinks he's been wronged or not. Just throwin it out there.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 15, 2009 1:57:53 GMT -5
Ok, but where did the sources of high energy come from? And where did the sun come from? Has the sun always been there? where they came from has nothing to with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with the origin of LIFE on earth, not the origin of the universe. Where the energy came from has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not saying there is or isn't a god. It's just saying this is how life as we know it today came to be. God could have still made the energy, or god could not exist. Either way, it doesn't matter. There is an immense difference between an opinion and a theory. A theory, by the scientific definition of the word, "is constructed to conform to available empirical data...and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." (wikipedia) That is, a scientific theories are based on facts. Opinions need not be based on anything at all. And therein lies the distinction you are not making. They don't. One of the core principles of science is that everything is subject to change if evidence contrary to an accepted theory is found. They don't pretend to know everything or to be absolutely correct, as religion does. As we learn more and understand more new theories are being created and old theories amended or discarded. Science is in a constant state of flux, unlike religion which will never change because they claim to have THE right answer. Right and wrong are definitely NOT objective principles. They are relative. Right/wrong, or morals, are usually determined by society, but you can see that different societies sometimes have different moral values, and to each theirs seems right and the others seems wrong, but neither one is any more or less correct than the other.
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Sept 15, 2009 9:35:55 GMT -5
"So whatever gets you through the night floating your boat while your in a foxhole having sex shouting out OH GOD! That my friends is your ANSWER!" Alright redwurd, I'm gonna have to vehemently disagree with you on that one, I believe that there is objective truth. And if I may be a bit jocular for a moment.... If anyone tells you that there are no absolutes, then ask him, "are you absolutely sure?", because without knowing it, he has just uttered an absolute statement lol. And I don't think anybody REALLY 100% believes in the statement "there is no right or wrong". If you hear someone say that to you, just steal his car and see if he thinks he's been wronged or not. Just throwin it out there. Um, I did not state that there is no objective truth. I absolutely believe in objective truth! I objectify truth wherever and whenever I can! lol My oh so clever (hell I thought is was): "So whatever gets you through the night floating your boat while you're in a foxhole having sex shouting OH God!" was an attempt to simply say that your beliefs are a matter of personal opinions. To reflect different times in your life where you may seek out a higher power to 'get you through the night'. The old statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is used to argue that when facing certain death all people will believe or hope to hell in a higher power, and a sequel of themselves into the next life! Am I betting on the Science horse in this race. Ya, but I'm also betting on the Spirituality horse to hedge my bets! In other absolute words, I'm not discounting anything!
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 15, 2009 19:47:02 GMT -5
"where they came from has nothing to with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with the origin of LIFE on earth, not the origin of the universe. Where the energy came from has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution."
If where they came from has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then evolution is ignoring potential data, and is commiting a crime in the world of science. If you design a hypothesis, omit the factual foundation, build on it evidences and scientific laws to support it, then claim that it is credible, your answer is still incorrect.
Hypothetical Example: All dogs can live for 17 years.
I fed my dog well, kept it clean, kept it safe, and gave it a lot of love, and my dog lived to be 17 years old. Therefore all dogs can live to be 17 years old if they are taken care of.
Now, to a kid that example would probably make sense, but I know that it is faulty because it lacks a foundation. All dogs are not the of the same heredity, some live longer than others. Dogs can be born premature, and die sooner than dogs that weren't. Dogs can get sick even if they are taken care of and die, and obviously an expert on dogs could give more examples. But the point is that if you don't have a solid foundation then your answer is doomed to be false.
In the same way, if Evolution discards where the sun and radiation came from, then they have no foundation for their theory, because they don't have the whole story. If you don't know how the universe got started, you don't know how life on earth got started, because you don't know all that happened in the course of time and are not privy to events that could have significance to the present debate of the origin of species OTHER than the events that Evolutionists bring up (the radiation of the sun and other sources of energy).
"The theory of evolution is not saying there is or isn't a god. It's just saying this is how life as we know it today came to be. God could have still made the energy, or god could not exist. Either way, it doesn't matter."
K, I kind of already answered this in my last rant, but to touch on the God issue, you're making it seem like Evolutionists are neutral to the issue of "God" but it seems that Evolutionists don't want God in the classroom. And honestly, not to make a comparison, but I think it was Hitler that said "If you control the classroom you control the country" or something like that. So if they don't want God in the classroom, then they've got a monopoly on our generation of kids. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING that's says something, but I'm honestly not accusing them, because it's not my place to say what their intentions are. That's all I have to say on that issue for now.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 15, 2009 20:36:55 GMT -5
Answer me this, how would the theory of evolution change if the energy that started it came from god? How would it change if god didn't exist?
As to your other point, considering that public schools are a function of the state, and there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the US, it is only logical that God should be kept out of the classroom. In a private school, like a catholic school for example, they can teach whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 16, 2009 1:56:36 GMT -5
"Answer me this, how would the theory of evolution change if the energy that started it came from god? How would it change if god didn't exist?"
Alright, I'm tired, and didn't get to finish my earlier post all the way because Shadow wanted to get online lol, but I don't recall saying that God had to have made the Universe, I merely said that the theory of Evolution is faulty, because it doesn't take into account the origin of the Universe as a possible factor for how we came about today (refer to my previous post, I'm too tired to recount my points on this subject). Also your last post SEEMS to me to be evading the question by asking another to get everybody's attention off of my first point, (as if maybe you did not have an answer so were trying to throw a smoke screen) but I am tired and could've taken it the wrong way.
"As to your other point, considering that public schools are a function of the state, and there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the US, it is only logical that God should be kept out of the classroom. In a private school, like a catholic school for example, they can teach whatever they want. "
I'll try to do some research, and find the quote tomorrow but as I understand it, the whole "separation of church and state" is not even a part of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independance, or even anything official. It was just a letter that Thomas Jefferson (I believe) wrote to his nephew talking actually about how he wanted to keep the government out of church affairs.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 16, 2009 2:35:52 GMT -5
all I'm saying is that the origin of the universe does not change the theory of evolution. They are two separate issues. You're saying it would, but you haven't explained to me how it would.
I mean, suppose we have two fish in a fish bowl. The fish have some baby fish. We create a theory that one of the original fish was male, the other was female, and the male fertilized the eggs of the female. What you're saying is that that theory is flawed because it does not address what company made the fishbowl and where the water in it came from.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 16, 2009 5:25:22 GMT -5
K, I kind of already answered this in my last rant, but to touch on the God issue, you're making it seem like Evolutionists are neutral to the issue of "God" but it seems that Evolutionists don't want God in the classroom. And honestly, not to make a comparison, but I think it was Hitler that said "If you control the classroom you control the country" or something like that. So if they don't want God in the classroom, then they've got a monopoly on our generation of kids. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING that's says something, but I'm honestly not accusing them, because it's not my place to say what their intentions are. That's all I have to say on that issue for now. And those who want God in the classroom wouldn't be having the same monopoly on the generation of kids? God is not in the classroom because God is not science, period. The only class God belongs in is an elective Religion class or being briefly discussed as a cause of a civilization's actions in History class. That's like saying we're potentially harming our children by not teaching Calculus in English class. And, either way, I'd much rather have my children indoctrinated into the scientific method and logical pursuit of science than a "theory" that encourages blind faith and ignoring scientific facts. But, hey, maybe that's just me. "Separation of church and state" was a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter he sent, describing how he interpreted the first amendment, not how he thought the government should be run. Apparently, the Supreme Court agrees because they've used the phrase a lot over the years. Considering that the Supreme Court is the body that is charged with interpreting the Constitution, then, yeah, I'd say that it's part of our Constitution. Not in words directly, but in interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 17, 2009 2:12:05 GMT -5
"all I'm saying is that the origin of the universe does not change the theory of evolution. They are two separate issues. You're saying it would, but you haven't explained to me how it would."
Alright let me try to explain, if Evolution does not adress whatever happened BEFORE life on earth began, and just thow all that out the window, then they could be missing something that COULD have actually been the TRUE reason for life on earth. What I'm saying is that if they don't know the whole story, then they can't draw a correct conclusion as to what happened, because they don't even know what all happened, and therefore don't have all of the possible factors (foundation) before them to make a correct conclusion.
"I mean, suppose we have two fish in a fish bowl. The fish have some baby fish. We create a theory that one of the original fish was male, the other was female, and the male fertilized the eggs of the female. What you're saying is that that theory is flawed because it does not address what company made the fishbowl and where the water in it came from."
No, because I'm saying that what happened before life on earth began is important and could affect how life began, and you're saying that it doesn't matter. That illustration is an incorrect comparison to what I am saying.
"And those who want God in the classroom wouldn't be having the same monopoly on the generation of kids? God is not in the classroom because God is not science, period. The only class God belongs in is an elective Religion class or being briefly discussed as a cause of a civilization's actions in History class. That's like saying we're potentially harming our children by not teaching Calculus in English class."
No, they would not have a monopoly, because they simply want both theories in the classroom. Plus, IF God created the Universe, then He does have a place in science, as the Creator of the Universe.
""Separation of church and state" was a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter he sent, describing how he interpreted the first amendment, not how he thought the government should be run. Apparently, the Supreme Court agrees because they've used the phrase a lot over the years. Considering that the Supreme Court is the body that is charged with interpreting the Constitution, then, yeah, I'd say that it's part of our Constitution. Not in words directly, but in interpretation."
I said that I would do some research on that, I haven't gotten to it yet, I'll dig up the quote and find out the context myself when I get time.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 17, 2009 2:16:22 GMT -5
they know there was no life before the creation of earth, and that sometime after the creation of earth life appeared. That's a solid foundation. Right now you're just determined to find something to disagree with, even when the reason you are disagreeing is completely illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 17, 2009 2:18:56 GMT -5
Alright BM: What happened before life on earth began? Also that is not a solid foundation BECAUSE they don't know what happened before life on earth began, and are ignorant as to what could have happened, therefore they have a "loose end".
Plus, I'd like to know how they found out beyond all doubt that NO life existed before life on earth.
|
|