Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#15116 08/29/06 01:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"what if GOD described everything for us.and told us everything we need to know.then there would be nothing new for us to learn or discover."

Of what relevance is that? how is that evidence of anything?

"there also would be no need for science."
The god hypothesis works with any output. Therefore it isn't science.

"but where is the irevalence in making a grain of sand from nothing?"
It has nothing to do with whether the science we now have is correct.

"if that is too hard for every scientist in this world to accomplish using everything science has learned , "
That is irrelevant.

"then why not just make a single atom or a electron or a photon , make anything from nothing and then get back to me."
Argument from ignorance is invalid.

"fact is all of science put together cant make anything from nothing using nothing."
Nobody claims that scientists made the universe.

"so where did something come from?"
Science doesn't know and may never know. That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and put an end to questioning.

Nobody's asking you to disbelieve in god. What I'm saying is that God is irrelevant to science.

.
#15117 08/29/06 05:23 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
dehammer: why just 1 galaxy?
what would there be to explore once this galaxy has been explored?

by haveing other galaxyies to observe we can see our galaxy clearer.
that still would not require more than a few. thats even if we as a race can explore even this one galaxy. If we needed to see another galaxy, we would only need andromeda. why would got have to make billions of galaxies.

Quote:
thefalliblefiend:
what if GOD described everything for us.
and told us everything we need to know.
then there would be nothing new for us
to learn or discover.
there also would be no need for science.

but where is the irrelavence in making a grain of sand from nothing?

if that is too hard for every scientist in this world to accomplish using everything science has learned , then why not just make a single atom or a electron or a photon , make anything from nothing and then get back to me.

fact is all of science put together cant make anything from nothing using nothing.

so where did something come from?
what does the fact that we dont know everything have to do with knowing things like evolution. Just because we cant create something like an atom, does not mean that we dont know things. We do have science, we do know how to carbon date things, we do know how to add a line of things together. so what if we are not gods. does that mean that we dont have knowledge of somethings that are obvious?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15118 08/29/06 04:55 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Another great website is www.aig.org a great book to read written by an athiest is called "The Case for a Creator"

#15119 08/29/06 05:45 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Answers In Genesis is also not a scientific website. It contains many factual and logical errors. It presents numerous arguments that have been long refuted by the scientific community.

Science does not support your religion. Science does not support belief in your God. Science doesn't say anything at all about your god.

#15120 08/29/06 06:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
"Of what relevance is that? how is that evidence of anything?"

Of what relevance is that?

"The god hypothesis works with any output. Therefore it isn't science.
"

Of what relevance is that?

"It has nothing to do with whether the science we now have is correct.
"

Of what relevance is that?

"That is irrelevant. "

Of what relevance is that?

"Argument from ignorance is invalid."

Of what relevance is that?

"Nobody claims that scientists made the universe."

no scientist just think that they know how everything works and that their thoughts are the only ones that count and everything in opposition is wrong.

"Science doesn't know and may never know. That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and put an end to questioning."

you dont throw up your hands you close your minds if something seems out of the known science envelope and that it what our problems arose from
, your instant conclusions that you and you alone are right.

if I make a computer program to perform a task , then run that program , it will perform that task and only that task.

if I ask a scientist to think of something out of his programing envelope he cannot perform this task due to his programming.

when I think of a scientist I consider him as a programed object that cannot think by himself he must rely on his programming , and will not perform anything other than what he is programmed to do.

until some not so well programmed scientist finds something outside the envelope and then the programmers change the scientist programming to reflect the new findings.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15121 08/29/06 07:06 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The relevance of my comments is that they show your arguments to be invalid.

"your instant conclusions that you and you alone are right."
This was not an instant conclusion. It is a conclusion based on roughly 25 years of reading intently on this issue and debating it. It is a conclusion derived from reading your actual statements and responding to the actual arguments.

You have not done the least bit of homework on the subject of evolution. You want to express your very strong and uninformed opinion on the subject. I am simply relating that you are uninformed and that the logic you use is faulty.

If you have not seen enough to convince you of evolution, it is because you have not examined the issues carefully. It is not the purpose of or a requirement of science to meet whatever logically irrelevant conditions it would take to convince you of evolution's veracity.

You can educate yourself on the subject or you can continue to spout irrelevant nonsense.

Science does not support a belief in your religion. It does not support a belief in your God. It doesn't say anything at all about any god(s).

#15122 08/29/06 07:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
"what does the fact that we dont know everything have to do with knowing things like evolution."

where exactly do you find evidence that your evolution is exactly correct as you believe?

do you find it in the ground that is now above water?

have you carried out excavations below the oceans
, how do you know in all of your wisdom that there were not men living on earth when the sea levels were much lower?

your evolution may in fact be exactly backwards it may be found that apes evolved from man.
due to environmental reasons , your evolution may in fact be just environmental adaptations.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15123 08/29/06 07:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
"You have not done the least bit of homework on the subject of evolution. You want to express your very strong and uninformed opinion on the subject. I am simply relating that you are uninformed and that the logic you use is faulty."

3/4 of the earths surface is water and a good portion is ice.

"the logic you use is faulty"
using your logic lets see what would/might happen.

I am told to go into a city that has 4 districts and search for terrorist.

I search in district #1 only because the other 3 districts were blurred or out of view.

I radio in that all is clear.

the next day hundreds of people are blown up by terrorist in that city that I had cleared.

because my vision of the other districts was blurred the knowledge I had of the size of the city was faulty.
and all the terrorist were hiding in districts #2,#3,and #4

do I trust you as a scientist and believe what you say is correct without a doubt?


so you base your opinion on the remaning 1/4 right.

my odds are better than yours I think.
and judging from the looks only of sea floor maps
the sea levels were much lower in the past.
this would most likely be because ice was the prevailant surface at that time on what is now land.

so if you want to base your evolution on 1/4 of the earths surface and upon something that was mostly covered in ice where humans probably would not want to live , then go ahead.

science takes into consideration all aspects possible to try to find reasons for things to be the way they are.

not just reasons that have been used in the past by people who have closed minds.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15124 08/29/06 07:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
"not just reasons that have been used in the past by people who have closed minds."

If men were now only to rely on what is now a scientist for information , then he would not have a correct supply of information because what a scientist believes is sort of controlled by other scientist beliefs and what he is paid to not tell or to withold.

so in my opinion a truthfull thought/opinion is better than a thought/opinion from an oppressed scientist.

Sad but True...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15125 08/30/06 12:02 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
"what does the fact that we dont know everything have to do with knowing things like evolution."

where exactly do you find evidence that your evolution is exactly correct as you believe?

do you find it in the ground that is now above water?

have you carried out excavations below the oceans
, how do you know in all of your wisdom that there were not men living on earth when the sea levels were much lower?

your evolution may in fact be exactly backwards it may be found that apes evolved from man.
due to environmental reasons , your evolution may in fact be just environmental adaptations.
most of this is nonsense.

one there is evidence of life existing several million years ago. according to creationist, thats not possible.

how can apes have evolved from man, when man did not exist then. where is the evidence that man predates the beings that both man and apes evolved from. for that matter who has ever said that man evolved from apes? creationist claim that is what scientist have said, but scientist claim that they both have a common ancester.

If you read the evidence in threads i have posted in a few months, they know how low the sea levels have been for the last several million years. The sea was 120 meters lower about 20,000 years ago, which would have left a lot of land that is not now used. the thing is, why would they stay in such a small area, instead of spreading around the world. It did not take the sea levels that long to fall that far, and it did not take them more than a couple thousand years to rise. If man had lived as man before the sea levels fell, he would have left his mark on other areas. If he only evolved (or was created) during that time. then why was he only in that area. If god had decided to create the garden of eden but had forgotten to put it in a place that would stay there for long, that was not very good planning. If he did put it there, then it was not eve that go man barred from the garden, it was nature. Mother nature, we know thee, and your name is eve. (sarcasm alert) Now the question is, when man had to leave the land that was then recovered by the sea, why did they not leave more evidence. why did their settlements not suddently appear in all the areas that were now sea shore. there is no evidence of a mass migration from the lower land to the new sea shores.

If you want to find the evidence of evolution, go to any natural science museum and look at how things are connected. Look at how old things are. look at how there is a progression. Not all the links have been found, but they have found a lot of links. Then tell me, without saying the words bible or god, why should we disbelieve the evidence right in front of our noses.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15126 08/30/06 12:06 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
"not just reasons that have been used in the past by people who have closed minds."

If men were now only to rely on what is now a scientist for information , then he would not have a correct supply of information because what a scientist believes is sort of controlled by other scientist beliefs and what he is paid to not tell or to withold.

so in my opinion a truthfull thought/opinion is better than a thought/opinion from an oppressed scientist.

Sad but True...
how is what a scientist believes controlled by other scientist. In order to be a scientist, you have to learn to ask quetions, something that religious leaders dont want. So if you dont believe something you ask yourself why, and then you find out what evidence is there one way or the other. If what you believe is wrong, then you have a good chance of finding out why. If what you believe is true, then you can find evidence to back up your beliefs, then you use that evidence to convience others. If your beleifs are controlled by another, then what you have is by definition, a religion.

now as to the possiblity that man lived in the sea that coveres 3/4 of the world, please explain how man would live beneith the sea level and still be a man, unless he was brought here by aliens who built a massive underwater city for him to live in.

to use your analogy of the terrorist and the city.

i go to a city to check it out. i check out 1/4 of the city and cant find them. I look at the other 3/4 of the city and i see water. deep water. water so deep that if a man was at the bottom of it, he would not have to worry about drowning, because he would have not lungs, because they had been crushed. I see a small (10 percent) of it that could have under water caves, so i use under water equipment that can find them.

If the terrorist are there, they would be hiding in the shallows or they would be in huge domes that would make them very obvious or they are living in ships that can be found, or they are not human. Knowing that there are suppose to be terrorist hiding there, i set up equipment that will show if anyone approaches the shore.

now either i did not search the 1/4 of the city that was within my reach, or i did not yet have the equipment to find those subs or cities, because they had better science than me, or the terrorist were not in the town at all, but came from somewhere else.

If man was hiding in the sea for all the time that it took for him to become man, who brought him there, and who's science hid him from us.

here is your chance to prove that god (or aliens) existed. prove man was hiding in the ocean at depths that he could not have survived without either god or the aliens.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15127 08/30/06 01:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"so in my opinion a truthfull thought/opinion is better than a thought/opinion from an oppressed scientist."

Your central problem is assumed and not explicitly stated - that you, without careful study, would be capable of discerning the truth from the lie.

#15128 08/30/06 04:29 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer's second fallacy is the assumption that there are oppressed scientists running around academia.

But you are correct. No one but an expert in my field, for example, could tell whether my interpretation of a mass spectrograph was real or fabricated.


DA Morgan
#15129 08/30/06 05:29 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer's second fallacy is the assumption that there are oppressed scientists running around academia.

But you are correct. No one but an expert in my field, for example, could tell whether my interpretation of a mass spectrograph was real or fabricated.
what do you mean my assumption. ive already seen you refuse to read links, but now, your refusing to read the threads? i quoted him. that was not my assumption at all. Pay attension some of the time at least.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15130 08/30/06 01:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
some have a good one.
and some dont.


Quote:
If man was hiding in the sea for all the time that it took for him to become man, who brought him there, and who's science hid him from us.

here is your chance to prove that god (or aliens) existed. prove man was hiding in the ocean at depths that he could not have survived without either god or the aliens.
Dehammer:
I dont think that you should be telling anyone on this list that they do not read the post.
because from my observance of your replies to my post alone , it seems that you may be reading the post but interpreting the meanings of the posts differently in your brain from their intended meanings.
Granted DA did confuse your post to what I had posted but that is only one occurance , you have repeatedly interpreted my post out of context.

perhaps you are listening to loud music or hearing loud noises that interfere with your brains ability to maintan a streamline pattern of thought while you are reading the post.

this might be a reason for your not knowing what you have learned as sudgested in the footnote of your post.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15131 08/30/06 03:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Have any of you ever studied the human brain? Like how intelligence could come from intelligence? If you do, you can find that we could not have come from inorganic compounds. One atheist did a study upon the fine-tuning of the universe (like for a planet to be in the right orbit, distance from a sun, elements there, etc.) and found that he couldn't even right the odds of it happening on paper because there aren't even that many elements in the universe. Only an intelligent designer could have done it. Read "The Case for a Creator" by an atheist, Lee Strobel.

#15132 08/30/06 03:51 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:
Dehammer:
I dont think that you should be telling anyone on this list that they do not read the post.
because from my observance of your replies to my post alone , it seems that you may be reading the post but interpreting the meanings of the posts differently in your brain from their intended meanings.
Granted DA did confuse your post to what I had posted but that is only one occurance , you have repeatedly interpreted my post out of context.

perhaps you are listening to loud music or hearing loud noises that interfere with your brains ability to maintan a streamline pattern of thought while you are reading the post.

this might be a reason for your not knowing what you have learned as sudgested in the footnote of your post.
I see, so rather than understand the impossiblity of what you claim, you attack the sarcasm that i used. If you cant understand the sarcasm, then ignore it and face the facts that i gave you.

1) humans cant possibly live in 95 percent of the ocean, even when it was at the lowest levels even recorded, that was 120 meters below current sea level

2) all the evidence found so far below current levels belong to known civilizations

3) there is no evidence that man ever lived in those areas of the sea that have not had subsidance from above the sea level.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#15133 08/30/06 05:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


Quote:
1) humans cant possibly live in 95 percent of the ocean, even when it was at the lowest levels even recorded, that was 120 meters below current sea level
hmmm ... if I look at apx 100 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 270 meters.

if I look at 20 thousand years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 130 meters.

and if I look at apx 475 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 400 meters.
:according to halam et al

you keep harping about 130 meters.

quit localizing expand your available horrizons time extends further than your 20,000 year example , if not then how did you carbon date those million year old fossils.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15134 08/30/06 05:21 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
The depth of the shelf also varies, but is generally limited to water shallower than 150 meters

READ THIS PLEASE

the contenental shelf is extremely long in places , if the sea level were lower than the shelf , then began to rise again , would not the tides wash in and out , in and out , in and out , until any signs of habitation were sucked out beyond the slope and rise and burried in the silt.

or just burried in place sort of like you standing on a beach and when the tide washes by your feet you sink slightly into the sand.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
#15135 08/30/06 05:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by paul:


Quote:
1) humans cant possibly live in 95 percent of the ocean, even when it was at the lowest levels even recorded, that was 120 meters below current sea level
hmmm ... if I look at apx 100 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 270 meters.

if I look at 20 thousand years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 130 meters.

and if I look at apx 475 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 400 meters.
:according to halam et al

you keep harping about 130 meters.

quit localizing expand your available horrizons time extends further than your 20,000 year example , if not then how did you carbon date those million year old fossils.
ive yet to hear of anyone claiming that man lived a million years ago. (not outside of movies atleast) If they had existed then, there would be evidence of their existance since then, or they would have been wiped out. Either way, there is no connections to people that might have lived near the sea when it was 400 meters lower than it is now, and current humans. If you can find it, then you can show the evidence and be quite famous. Evidence suggest that the only time the sea was low enough that the sea would hide evidence of his evolution, is the one that was 20000 years ago. therefore there is no need to discuss anything before that. any attempt to do so is obviously merely an attempt to cloud the issue.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5