quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Karnaj said:
It's too bad creation 'theories', as well as arguments for God's existence all inevitably fall prey to Occam's Razor and the logical principle of parsimony.
Derp, now I remember what the Law of Parsimony is. I had remembered that I read about it - but it was vexing me because I couldn't remember what it was specifically.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Vorbo Goatboy said this:
Derp, now I remember what the Law of Parsimony is. I had remembered that I read about it - but it was vexing me because I couldn't remember what it was specifically.
I forgot. [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Delphi Aegis ]
Edit: Is it that whole "Can god make a rock that he cant lift" dealie?
quote:
Delphi Aegis's fortune cookie read:
I forgot.
Edit: Is it that whole "Can god make a rock that he cant lift" dealie?
No. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about John Romero:
No. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Damn.
I WANNA KNOW!
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Delphi Aegis wrote:
For the record, your rock into space and life from purified water ideas are esentially flawed.First of all, we don't exactly know what the hell the big bang was. All we have noticed is that all the galaxies and shit are moving away from one another. So, bring the timeline back far enough, and you get to a single point.. And energy to matter transfers can be done in theory (Woo woo scientifically if not technologically sound Star Trek!).
And purified water is two elements. That's it. Nothing like the "soup" that scientists propose we were made out of. There was a shitload more in there then just water. We don't KNOW what, since we weren't there, but anyway..
Please bring rational arguments to a discussion next time.
ONO! My hastily made examples have been picked apart! OK, have it your way, I'll change my stipulations:
When scientists take whatever soup of nutrients they want, keeping it completely devoid of all life, and prove that living things formed out of it with no outside intervention; I'll give evolution a thought.
When we can somehow prove that the planets were made through natural means, being completely explained by science. Then creationism starts to hold more promise for me. Until then, it may have been God who started out the universe through the big bang.
This is it for me tonight, I've gotta get some sleep.
Also, I go back to the E=mc^2 thing. Sure, it took a shitload of energy, but it can still be rationally explained by defined rules of science.
quote:
Rodent King had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
When we can somehow prove that the planets were made through natural means, being completely explained by science. Then creationism starts to hold more promise for me. Until then, it may have been God who started out the universe through the big bang.
What, did you fall asleep during physics class or something? Newtonian physics gave us irrefutable prove of how the planets formed over three-hundred years ago; it's called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Do you actually think that the earth was formed in six days, like the Bible says?
For shits and giggles, let's take a look at that idea. Conservation of mass/energy dictates that if the Earth's mass (6E24 kg) coalesced into a 12,750km wide sphere 6000 or so years ago, then roughly 2.4E32 joules of gravitational potential energy was converted into heat. Law of Theromodynamics, folks, can't get around it. This is a lot of energy; it's enough to vapourize the entire planet! So how did the earth cool and become inhabitable so quickly?
Let's say it took six days to dump this heat; its surface luminosity would have been more than 900 GW/m². To put that in perspective, that's around 15,000 times as bright as the Sun! And yet Genesis says that the Earth was covered in water the moment it was created. Are your bullshit detectors going off yet, people?
OK, so six days too few for you? Let's say it had 1000 years to cool down. Its surface luminosity would have been nearly 15 MW/m², which is still nearly a quarter of the luminosity of the Sun. Its surface temperature? More than 4000 K.
So where did the surface energy go? I guess God can violate the laws of physics. But wait! If God can do that, then that nullifies creationism as a science, and indeed, a valid objective explanation.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Tron:
What, did you fall asleep during physics class or something? Newtonian physics gave us irrefutable prove of how the planets formed over three-hundred years ago; it's called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Do you actually think that the earth was formed in six days, like the Bible says?For shits and giggles, let's take a look at that idea. Conservation of mass/energy dictates that if the Earth's mass (6E24 kg) coalesced into a 12,750km wide sphere 6000 or so years ago, then roughly 2.4E32 joules of gravitational potential energy was converted into heat. Law of Theromodynamics, folks, can't get around it. This is a lot of energy; it's enough to vapourize the entire planet! So how did the earth cool and become inhabitable so quickly?
Let's say it took six days to dump this heat; its surface luminosity would have been more than 900 GW/m². To put that in perspective, that's around 15,000 times as bright as the Sun! And yet Genesis says that the Earth was covered in water the moment it was created. Are your bullshit detectors going off yet, people?
OK, so six days too few for you? Let's say it had 1000 years to cool down. Its surface luminosity would have been nearly 15 MW/m², which is still nearly a quarter of the luminosity of the Sun. Its surface temperature? More than 4000 K.
So where did the surface energy go? I guess God can violate the laws of physics. But wait! If God can do that, then that nullifies creationism as a science, and indeed, a valid objective explanation.
That, while pure and UTTER ownage.. is besides the point I THINK he was trying to make.
He was trying to ask why and how the stuff for the planets was made.. Er, maybe.
Jeeze, people make this out to be harder than it really is.
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Duck Tales:
Damn.I WANNA KNOW!
Correct me if I'm wrong Karnaj, but if I remember correctly it's a corollary (I think) to Occam's Razor that states "If there are two answers, the most simple answer is the correct one."
quote:
Nobody really understood why Falaanla Marr wrote:
Stealing a page from Star Collective's book here. Seems this will make another good discussion.ONLY if you believe Creationism or Evolution...discussion starts at 12 midnight Eastern Time.
Thief! Villain! Bandit!!
(I am such a trend setter 
)
quote:
Delphi Aegis thought about the meaning of life:
That, while pure and UTTER ownage.. is besides the point I THINK he was trying to make.He was trying to ask why and how the stuff for the planets was made.. Er, maybe.
Look, the Big Bang has been proven a valid theory. The universal cosmic background radiation, which measures at 2.7 degrees K, fits the standard cosmological model for how the universe came into existence rather nicely, and places its age between 12 and 14 billion years old (there is a small amount of uncertainty in Hubble's constant, still). If he decided to remain ignorant of current cosmological theory, that's his problem, not ours.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I need to take a college physics course and learn all this shit, it's so fucking INTERESTING! 
quote:
Vorbo Goatboy had this to say about Cuba:
Correct me if I'm wrong Karnaj, but if I remember correctly it's a corollary (I think) to Occam's Razor that states "If there are two answers, the most simple answer is the correct one."
More or less, that's correct. By that, you come to the conclusion that any theory which involves intervention from God has redundant variables, and should therefore be discarded.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Law of Theromodynamics, folks, can't get around it.
Explain this then, please.
quote:
All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics
How exactly did evolution occur then?
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Cetona said:
How exactly did evolution occur then?
Things not dying
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about (_|_):
What, did you fall asleep during physics class or something? Newtonian physics gave us irrefutable prove of how the planets formed over three-hundred years ago; it's called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Do you actually think that the earth was formed in six days, like the Bible says?
By this, I mean that Newton's laws were formed more than three hundred years ago; not the earth. Sorry if that caused confusion. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
...
Karnaj, take what I said and make it make sense!
quote:
Vorbo Goatboy enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Karnaj, take what I said and make it make sense!
You pretty much nailed it, Vorbo.
Well done!
quote:
From the book of Cetona, chapter 3, verse 16:
How exactly did evolution occur then?
Ah yes, this ol' bullshit argument.
You know that big fucking ball of burning hydrogen that's in the sky during the day? Yeah, the sun. Keep it in mind for a moment.
quote:
All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics
What you conveniently left out of that quote is that entropy increases IN CLOSED SYSTEMS, WHERE NO ENERGY IS ADDED.
OK, now recall when you go out in the summer, and the sun's beatin' down on your skin. You know how you get hot if you stay in the sun? THAT'S BECAUSE ENERGY IS BEING ADDED INTO THE SYSTEM.
Let me state this unambiguously:
THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. WE GET ENERGY, AND SHITLOADS OF IT, FROM THE SUN. EVOLUTION DOES NOT, I REPEAT, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics remains true, however, because on a universal level entropy IS still increasing. It is not, however, increasing on a planetary scale, because we have that giant fucking ball of burning hydrogen called the sun dumping massive amounts of energy into our ecosystem, which fuels evolution.
I won't even say it's a nice try, because it's been refuted so many times by so many people I could almost do it by rote.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I hope that was concise enough.
quote:
Vorbo Goatboy's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
To counter a possible rebuttal - The universe is not a closed system, in order it to be closed it would have to be finite. However, the universe is relatively infinite. Thusly, the universe as a whole is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.I hope that was concise enough.
Ah, but there's a finite amount of energy in the universe, my young padawan. Since the universe is infinite, the amount of energy per unit area(or volume, if you like) will forever shrink to zero and the net entropy will forever increase to infinity.
Note, however, that I said NET entropy, which means the TOTAL SUM OF OF ALL PROCESSES IN THE UNIVERSE. That's a very important distinction to remember. [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
"Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory
Charles Darwin said that. No transitional fossils have been found (to my knowledge) that have been proven to be genuine.
Also,
quote:
The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest".
quote:
The lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With all these layers exposed for millions of years, you would expect to find numerous soil layers. Even in extreme desert environments these should build up. Yet in the fossil record there is very scant evidence of any build-up. Selected areas of soil layers is exactly what you would expect for the geology of a world-wide flood.
quote:
Biogenetic law -- This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.
quote:
Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extrapolating backwards, it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.
quote:
When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.
We've encouraged a bit of evolution ourselves, in that we caused what was once a single species of wolf/wild dog to produce different breeds/races, essentially the same species, but with a great variety of traits through selective breeding. Bingo, evolution, hello?
Aha! l33t copy/past job from the other thread!
It's been proven by dated geological samples that the earth's magnetic poles change, and or rearange themselves every 10,000 years. They don't get "smaller" or have less of a gauss rating.
quote:
Karnaj stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Ah, but there's a finite amount of energy in the universe, my young padawan. Since the universe is infinite, the amount of energy per unit area(or volume, if you like) will forever shrink to zero and the net entropy will forever increase to infinity.Note, however, that I said NET entropy, which means the TOTAL SUM OF OF ALL PROCESSES IN THE UNIVERSE. That's a very important distinction to remember.
Of course! How could I forget about something that important?
This is, of course, why you are the master and I am the learner.
quote:
Karnaj wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Ah, but there's a finite amount of energy in the universe, my young padawan. Since the universe is infinite, the amount of energy per unit area(or volume, if you like) will forever shrink to zero and the net entropy will forever increase to infinity.Note, however, that I said NET entropy, which means the TOTAL SUM OF OF ALL PROCESSES IN THE UNIVERSE. That's a very important distinction to remember.
Universe be very very big, but still finite.
quote:
Dr. Pvednes, PhD obviously shouldn't have said:
Universe be very very big, but still finite.
"Only two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity.. And I'm not sure about the former." --Einstein
Not a bash on you, Pved, just figured the quote fit this recent discussion.
Is there empirical proof that the world was somehow assembled 6000 years ago, in an already aged state, with fossils in the ground, different species with similar attributes, and all the rest of what we see around us?
Can you give me a single shread of evidence disproving the existence of a God, whilst keeping in mind that a lack of evidence is not a negative proof. Remember folks, Occam's Razor is merely a useful tool for hypothesis testing, it states that when two hypotheses fit all observed facts, the simpler of the two is USUALLY right. Note that it is not a proof, but merely a probability.
I will stipulate that there is probably no God, but I will not state firmly that there is not one. When there is a complete lack of evidence, all hypotheses are equally true.
Since the theory of an earth being created 6000 years ago, in a pre aged state fits every fact supporting evolution, it must also be treated as being equally true.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
"Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory
And Darwin is how many years out of date? See, science has this thing called "peer review" where theories are constantly challenged, revised, and someitimes discarded. If you'd bothered to look at the fossil record, you'd notice that every ancient version of a modern animal is a transitional form, between an even more primitive animal and its modern descendant. Or maybe you've been watching "The Fly", and you think a transitional form should be some sort of freakish hybrid, built from half of one animal and half of another.
quote:
The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest".
Lie. Go to the Grand Canyon sometime. Guess where the oldest rock's gonna be. Go on, guess.
quote:
The lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With all these layers exposed for millions of years, you would expect to find numerous soil layers. Even in extreme desert environments these should build up. Yet in the fossil record there is very scant evidence of any build-up. Selected areas of soil layers is exactly what you would expect for the geology of a world-wide flood.
Bullshit, and wrong again! Some mountain ranges are much more eroded than others, and fossils are not sorted by size and weight. They are sorted by age, so that tiny insects and huge dinosaurs from 100 million years ago are found at the same depth. And why don't we find Bronze Age artifacts at the very bottom, since they would sink faster than any living creature? After all, a bronze arrowhead doesn't try to swim.
quote:
Biogenetic law -- This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.
Good misquote. Obviously, life as we know it today cannot form from inanimate matter. Only the Bible would describe something so stupid and unrealistic as dust magically transforming into a human being. Even the simplest bacteria could not form from inanimate matter. However, an organic molecule can certainly form from inanimate matter, and life began on this planet with nothing more than a molecule whose atoms happened to be arranged in such a manner as to permit self-replicating chemical reactions.
quote:
Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extrapolating backwards, it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.
Lie again! The Earth's magnetic field is not decaying at all; it is merely changing its orientation. The non-dipole component is increasing and the dipole component is decreasing. By measuring the dipole component and ignoring the non-dipole component, you create a convenient, but flat-out wrong one-dimension argument.
quote:
When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.
Wow, that's about the worst pseudoscience I've ever read, EVER.
1. It ignores the fact that in order for any supernova to exist, a star must have lived through its entire life cycle (billions of years for most stars, although enormous stars only last for tens of millions of years) and then died. Even if there were just one supernova remnant in the entire universe, its mere existence would completely destroy claims about the young age of the universe! The life cycle of a star has been modelled based on our knowledge of gravity, plasma physics, and nuclear physics.
2. It ignores the fact that supernova remnants tend to rapidly fade from visibility as they lose energy, since it assumes a supernova remnant is visible to us for its entire 1 million year theoretical lifetime.
3.It greatly exaggerates our ability to see these remnants. No astronomer has ever confidently stated that we can see 20% of the supernova remnants in the galaxy. The 20% figure comes from the assumption that all supernovae leave shell-type remnants (which is totally untrue; some supernovae leave no remnants at all), in conjunction with some quotes taken out of context.
[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Frankly, I've had enough of your posting unreferenced quotes and going "REFUTE THIS" bullshit. Next time you do it, you better provide sources for your crap, or I'm gonna outright ignore your tripe.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I'd like to see it.
/raving off
"Your mind is like a parachute, to work it first has to be open."
moral of the story: Question Reality [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Fox ]
Go take a bath in some spaghetti sauce!
quote:
Cetona had this to say about (_|_):
I'd like to see it.
Go fucking look for one.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Ah, but there's a finite amount of energy in the universe, my young padawan. Since the universe is infinite, the amount of energy per unit area(or volume, if you like) will forever shrink to zero and the net entropy will forever increase to infinity.Note, however, that I said NET entropy, which means the TOTAL SUM OF OF ALL PROCESSES IN THE UNIVERSE. That's a very important distinction to remember.
even though the amount may be finite, energy never dies, just transfers from one form or the other, correct? So therefore even if there is a finite energy, in a different way (not like the universe is inifinite, more like how a circle is infinite) it is not.
quote:
Pesco had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Only makes sense, that we would at some point EVOLVE to match our Creator. Then we become the Creators? Oh, and what about our Creator? How did he come about? Logic only dictates that the Creator was question their own existance. So it cycles infinately til it all circles back onto itself and through some paradox we find out that we created ourselves.
It is an interesting idea, but seeming how so far our evolutionary process is limited to physical adaptations only, going from flesh to god is an awefull big leap that would probably take more time than humanity's got, if not completly impossible, as I doubt we are capable of such things. Then again perhaps people start using more and more of our hidden mind potential slowly (psychics, telekenisis etc in small doses) and that gradually evolves till we no longer need a physical shell. Dunno.
btw Im not on either side, Im just popping my head in to be curious and be involved, dont quote me as I may/will be wrong about anything and everything. [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Fox ]
