Scientific/Philosophical/Religious Debate.

[moemakki]

Have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

AlexendroX, I did provide you with both a rational and logical explanation. So my question once again is, have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

I want you to conscientiously read that post, and then I want you to tell me how someone 1500 years ago can put so much knowledge into a book. It is impossible because some of that knowledge has just been recently discovered.

Oh by the way, you can not argue that God does not exist or that religion is false until you have FULLY studied each religion. Every religion perceives God differently, for example, Christians view God as a division of three, the trinity or 3 separate beings molded into one God, Muslims view God as one all powerful being with no companions or any physical form, if He had a physical form then He would be restricted to space, it would take Him time to move from one space to another, thus he has no physical form.

AlexandroX, have you ever read Harun's article which practically disproves atheism, not only does it disprove it, but it also makes you look foolhardy to believe in what you believe.

Click here and learn why atheism is really an obtuse idea (no offence):
http://www.harunyahya.com/70the_fall_of_atheism_sci34.php

 

[AlejandroX]

You can not quote from a source's teachings if it is the source's vailidy that we are debating.

Suggest you stop quoting Athism.org then

Retard, we are not discussing the valdity of Einstein's remarks. We are debating what they were. That does not apply.

 

[AlejandroX]

Hypothetical not hypocritical. Please just sit down. You're embarrassing yourself.

Yet you offer no proof, you expect us to take your word for things. Your ideas are full of holes, more so then even them most fundementalist of religion. Personaly I find you arrogant at best, you have only successfully managed to make yourself look like an *** with Ad holem remarks. Lean to debate before opening your mouth. You arn't worth anyone's time.

You mean Ad Hoc? Your stupidity is simply astonishing. Give me one example of the Ad Hoc fallacy in my argumentation.

 

[AlejandroX]

Have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

AlexendroX, I did provide you with both a rational and logical explanation. So my question once again is, have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

I want you to conscientiously read that post, and then I want you to tell me how someone 1500 years ago can put so much knowledge into a book. It is impossible because some of that knowledge has just been recently discovered.

Oh by the way, you can not argue that God does not exist or that religion is false until you have FULLY studied each religion. Every religion perceives God differently, for example, Christians view God as a division of three, the trinity or 3 separate beings molded into one God, Muslims view God as one all powerful being with no companions or any physical form, if He had a physical form then He would be restricted to space, it would take Him time to move from one space to another, thus he has no physical form.

AlexandroX, have you ever read Harun's article which practically disproves atheism, not only does it disprove it, but it also makes you look foolhardy to believe in what you believe.

Click here and learn why atheism is really an obtuse idea (no offence):
http://www.harunyahya.com/70the_fall_of_atheism_sci34.php

When deciding on the possiblity of the existance of god, the best way is to look at the fundamentals. Rather than going in depth into many interpretations of events like religions (which I have to great depths) it is better to assess the sheer posibility of god. Through this scientific mentality we cut to the chase in a way. By the way I've read Harun's argument before and discovered tht it is indeed full of holes. I'll post my response to it if you like.

 

[AlejandroX]

Really Alejandro, Hawkings talks about the spacetime thing? I've always wondered about that but I could never find anything on it. K, now my interest is piqued. :idea: I'll have to look him up. (uh oh, is this going to take a long time?) However, I can still find room for God in my universe, if not patience for the hypocrisies of religion. (Why is there no room? what about the Qu'aran person? Don't you believe any of it? Even with the illustrations?)

lol. I have to admit that that individual is an example of quantity vs quality. There are books and books about vampires and unicorns-many with illustrations. You're impressively perceptive.

ooh, wait you took what I said literally. Subtlety is an art. alejandro, seriously, elitism does tend to weaken your argument. it's much more effective if you attack the arguments themselves, not the arguer :!: Guess what, Hawking's .pdf was too much for my computer to handle, it froze it. The universe does NOT have tendencies towards order, it has tendencies towards disorder (remember entropy from chemistry class? "the degree of disorder" the "level of randomness") the universe is always going towards disorder. when a carbohydrate or hydrocarbon molecule breaks down, more randomness is created, and randomness can be passed on to other objects or molecules in the area. though energy can be niether created nor destroyed, it can change form from a more stable state to a less stable state, and this is the tendency of the universe. This is what makes it so shocking to scientists that we have evolved from elements, and that is why many scientists (besides the ones you quote) believe in God. { I miss chemistry. though many people switched out teh second semester because it was "too hard" and went to an easier teacher, I think we learned more in that class. and at least he didn't have a blatant ego disorder.} oops, there go the thoughts from my brain to my fingers again, its like they have no off switch. Do you mean evolutionary, that organisms are constantly adapting to their environment? gee, the laws of thermodynamics seem to be contradicting the theory of evolution here, so how do we eplain it? in that evolution has come so far that the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply? No, I don't think so. How about that evolution deals with larger organisms, and that thermodynamics is specific to the chemical breakdown? (nature abhors a vacuum, you know. gasses will take up as much space as they can) ok I better stop typing before I lose myself again.

I was responding to your (P.S.). As for the meat, I am referring to Hawking's mathmatical equations and universal theories when I talk about moving towards complexity. I hope you aren't suggesting that evolution contradicts thermodynamics. If you want to get specific on the scientific aspects (as hard as I've tried to keep it fundamental) I will post a more thourough response to that.

 

[AlejandroX]

Some food for thought about evolution as derived from several sources (enjoy):

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.

Isn't evolution just an unproven theory(you may be thinking)?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

How can random events result in such complex forms of life (such as humans like you or me or even ratfink[perhaps])?

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

How can organism's evolve (as it is contradictory to many fields of science)?

Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Because individuals in a population vary, some in the population are better able to survive and reproduce given a particular set of environmental conditions. These individuals generally survive and produce more offspring, thus passing their advantageous traits on to the next generation. Over time, the population changes.

 

[AlejandroX]

Here is an interesting assertation by PBS as to the validy of evolution (I know I've heard some of these stupid questions before):

1. Is there evidence for evolution?

In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a mountain of evidence has accumulated to support the theory. A greatly expanded fossil record since Darwin's time, the discovery of DNA and the process of genetic replication, an understanding of radioactive decay, observations of natural selection in the wild and in laboratories, and evidence in the genomes of many different organisms, including humans, have all bolstered the validity of the theory of evolution.

2. How can you know what happened millions of years ago if no one was there to see it?

Evidence and observation are the building blocks of all scientific inquiry; evolutionary science is no different. Evidence in the form of the fossil record, geological formations, and genetics attest to change having taken place and give clues to how evolution works. The theory of evolution puts these clues together into a cohesive explanation of the diversity of living things. Like all theories, the theory of evolution relies on tangible evidence as well as inference for those things that can't be observed directly. It is important to remember that Earth itself contains evidence of life in the past, and that this evidence provides critical support for the theory of evolution.

3. Does the fossil record tell us the whole story?

Opponents of evolution point to gaps in the fossil record as proof that the theory is invalid. They say the fossil record fails to show what are called "transitional forms," generally the in-between stages as one type of creature evolved into another. The fossil record certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; some will never be found. Nonetheless, we have many, many fossils that illustrate evolutionary transitions between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, and in many lineages such as whales and horses. And new fossils continue to reveal transitional forms that some said don't exist.

 

[AlejandroX]

This is even juicier!

1. What is "intelligent design," and is it science?

"Intelligent design theory" is built on the belief that evolution does not sufficiently explain the complexity that exists in life on Earth and that science should recognize the existence of an "intelligent designer." Proponents assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious. But the various aspects of intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community. No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Finally, the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim.

2. What is "creation science"? Is it a real science?

Proponents of "creation science" hold that special creationism -- the conviction that God created the universe, including humans and other living things, at one time in the relatively recent past -- can be supported using the methods and theory of science. Scientists from many fields have examined these ideas, however, and have found them to be scientifically insupportable. For example, evidence for a very young Earth is incompatible with many different methods of establishing the age of fossils and geological formations. Furthermore, because the basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and falsification, these ideas do not meet the criteria for science.

3. Wouldn't it be fair to teach evolution and "creation science" and/or "intelligent design" in public schools?

The Federal courts have ruled that creation science is not science at all, but a religious concept. Therefore it is not appropriate content for a science classroom. More to the point, evolution studies, like other sciences, are founded on a growing body of observable, reproducible evidence in the natural world, whereas "creation science" is based on accounts written in the Bible and "intelligent design" is not yet supported by scientific evidence. Teaching evolution alongside these other approaches would imply that creation science and intelligent design theory are as rigorously tested as evolution, and they are not.



Very relevant For more info visit:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html

 

[AlejandroX]

Have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

AlexendroX, I did provide you with both a rational and logical explanation. So my question once again is, have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

I want you to conscientiously read that post, and then I want you to tell me how someone 1500 years ago can put so much knowledge into a book. It is impossible because some of that knowledge has just been recently discovered.

Oh by the way, you can not argue that God does not exist or that religion is false until you have FULLY studied each religion. Every religion perceives God differently, for example, Christians view God as a division of three, the trinity or 3 separate beings molded into one God, Muslims view God as one all powerful being with no companions or any physical form, if He had a physical form then He would be restricted to space, it would take Him time to move from one space to another, thus he has no physical form.

AlexandroX, have you ever read Harun's article which practically disproves atheism, not only does it disprove it, but it also makes you look foolhardy to believe in what you believe.

Click here and learn why atheism is really an obtuse idea (no offence):
http://www.harunyahya.com/70the_fall_of_atheism_sci34.php

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos deliberately.

But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position.

This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

 

[d_pet_vet_seeker]

chemistry

See, that's what fascinates me about chemistry. molecules are made up of atoms which are made up of particles of energy. we are all pure energy. the manipulation of energy and the creation of new elements occurs inside stars at high temperatures. Since we're all pure energy, all these problems we've created really don't matter because we, as energy, are just dealing with energy, under the illusion created by our senses that it is another person or an object. Since we're all pure energy, ideas that may seem far fetched by some means are not far fetched if looked at with a new perspective. Its a kind of secular spirituality.

 

science backs up religion for me period.

 

[AlejandroX]

Well, that's nice.

 

Well, that's nice.

nice for me and you

 

[Token]

How about everyone belive in what they want. They cant have what ever faith. If its Christan or not.

If you do not bleive in god good
if you do belive in god great!

 

[Xenon]

There is one easy way to find your answer. If you do not consider evolution, don't try it. First ask yourself if you believe in ritualism. Ritualism is the belief that select words, actions, movements, ect. are more significant than others, and can induce supernatural phenomena. This is things such as spiritual yoga, magic words, ect. If you do, then this will not work. Now consider evolution. If modern evolution theories are right, then life never needed to evolve cognitively. Since we did, you can believe in one of four things:

1.) You believe a divinity created you.
2.) You believe in predestination.
3.) You believe that life is scientifically inevitable.
4.) You have no purpose, and life is meaningless.

The first one means you are religious. The other three show alternate belief. The reason the last one occurs is because if the other three are ruled out, you believe life is a anomalous case, and that we are not supposed to be.

 

[AlejandroX]

You can find purpose in your life even without a God. Initially, it's a cold and scary thought that nobody is listening to your thoughts, wishes, and prayers. This can be overcome, though. Once you move past it you can still find joy in life. Just because I don't believe in Gods or spirits or daemons or superman doesn't mean that I cannot find pleasure in love, or admire beauty, or even create and help. "Faith" as you call it need not interfere with your morality or fufillment.

 

[d_pet_vet_seeker]

for those of us in the dark...

Fallacy: Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

How about everyone belive in what they want. They cant have what ever faith. If its Christan or not.

If you do not bleive in god good
if you do belive in god great!

thats wrong it should be

If you do not bleive in God good
if you do belive in God great!

flame on
k thx

 

[AlejandroX]

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Ivan Jouikov]

All this stuff sounds interesting, and I will read it later... but what seems ridicolus to me, is that after a whole bunch of explanation that darwin's theory is false, that guy came up with a conclusion that what's true is that

"The guy took out his rib and that's how he's got his ho. Than their sick-ass kids had sex with each other and repopulated the whole earth"... WOW THIS IS A LOT MORE BELIVABLE!!!!!