Ok well I'm asking for help.

I'm a christian and I found a website, one of MSN's forums -- Atheists vs GOD -- now I found a post where someone basically claims that there are giant invisible giraffe living on the moon -- people don't seem to understand that arguing aginst the bible doesn't really prove the case for giraffe on the moon -- I suppose I should seriously be questioning the the motives of such people, but if anybody wants to help or check it out here's a link to the last page of the thread... (I'm probably only in the last two pages, my post started at #237)http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/rockthrowing.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=44682

I think I might just give up on this one not sure what I should do....

Actually, no. There are duckies (my faithful followers) and Juhan Af Grann (one of my army's commanders), living under a gigantic space/time distortion shield which allows them to be invisible and devise evil plots to conquer the Earth.

Go tell them that they'll acuse you of blashpme! man I'm sooo tired of them (why isnt there an exhausted emoticon?)

Perhaps this discussion should continue on:

Game Design & Concepts
General game design concepts that are not
specifically programming related

Why?

Off-Topic Ordeals - Rant and rave about the weather, politics, your job or anything else.

Unless, of course, you think of this as game designing.

^ the truth ...

They're just a bunch of people who are better at english, messing with your head via jokes. Sinbad's really really funny, actually. Calm down, think clearly, you're not in a serious debate so stop attempting to argue back in seriousness.

ChatRat is a bit more serious in some comments, like "I'll say whatever I bloody well want to say. God doesn't talk to people, people convince themselves that God has spoken to them so they can justify the otherwise unjustifiable."
Which is a valid completely valid statement on his part, and there's very little that can happen to him aside from hearing the voice of God or whatever, that will disprove it.

heh. That reminds me... My brother "Heard GOD". He told my brother to kill me. (No joke)

I agree with Zaphos.

Michael, your frustration stems from the fact that you're missing their point. In doing so, you've fallen into their trap.

They're not trying to prove the case for giraffes on the moon. Sinbad's piece is a satire. There is a reason why he's asking for "disproof", or otherwise he'll assume the giraffe theory is correct.

Disclaimer: I didn't waste my time following the link.

Debate on the subject is worthless. If either side could prove either side wrong, there would be no "either side". You are obviously set in your ways; they are set in theirs. Both of you would claim that "if the other guy could prove me wrong, then I'll change." But neither of you really mean it.

There's no reason you should feel obligated to prove yourself. An atheist cannot prove himself anymore than you can. If your religion does something good for you without harming others, then no one can think worse of you for it.

TF: OUch ... that's creepy. Heh, "hearing god" does have the rep for psychosis ... it can take a somewhat severe amount of delusion, I guess.

Ja, He disappeared shortly after (within months), We searched for him for a while, and only got bits and pieces... After a while we got no news, and later his skull was found by a dog in the river valley. (in fact the dog was playing with it in someones yard)

Our whole family is messed up, physically and mentally.

My advice would be to give up on that thread. Use your time to pray for them, instead of arguing. I've been in discussions similar to that, and I don't see anything useful ever coming from it. A thread like that is just made to make fun of christians.

Not always. I've seen threads like that where Christians mercilessly torment anyone who doesn't think the same way.

When it is started by a non-christian in that way, it's to make fun of christians. But of course it goes both ways. Christians can start threads that are no good too. I've seen both.

Anyway, discussing religion on the net may be interesting if both parts make objective and serious arguments, instead of making fun of each other, or arguing over nonsense. But I haven't seen many people change their mind when loosing a religious debate.

Hide! The entheh is coming!

And did anyone mention flame wars about religion?

Proof god does not exist:

If god existed...

• we would be born with graphical debuggers built into brain

• There would be no Java

• There would be no C++

• I would not have to run Linux to avoid the even more crappy Windows

• there would be more rasism and nazism in this world

• the soviet empire would have survived

If you want religious debate, go here

Well, you can't prove it, no. But you can reasonably believe it's not true since giraffes need oxygen and food, neither of which are up there. I suppose it's possible, but I shall assume the giraffe theory is incorrect based on logic and reason. PS: I didn't read the link either

Someone once asked me if I believed in Smurfs, since their existence can't be disproven. Well, we can find out through research that they're the creation of a bunch of TV guys with little proof beyond that, so it's reasonable to assume they're fictional

I can't prove God either, but I find the evidences to be more than reasonable personally. But I'm sure everyone here knew that

Quite right, but I know of athiests who would disagree

It's not unheard of (gold star for correct use of "it's"), but atheists are legendary for elitism on this topic. If you want to see what real trolls are capable of, go Google for a UseNet discussion called "F*CK CHRISTIANS" (all caps and without the asterisk). Someone crossposted a flame thread to several Christian newsgroups ... and alt.flame.jesus. Yikes. O_o

Some discussions with reasonably honest debaters can be informative and fun. Some are just trolls who base their rejection of Christianity on one or two hangups which aren't even true. Find out which this guy is before continuing or leaving

How can a conversation, where both parties adamantly refuse to accept or even consider the other party's opinions, turn out useful anyway?

Um... I don't see what you are referring too...

Inphernic: Kinda like that linux/OSS subtopic you participated in, in the vim/emacs thread? I'm dumb!.

Y'know, Inphernic, with that avatar I can't help but think everything you post is intended as a joke

Anyway, debating is a challenge and can be a good way to grow in your faith, assuming you have a clue. I actually "beat" someone a while ago who thought the Gospels couldn't possibly have been written in the first century. He had no comebacks for my proofs. Nice feeling And no one said anything about "adamantly refuse to accept or even consider the other party's opinions"; it's a good learning experience too. The alternative is putting your hands over your ears and singing "lalalalalala". Atheist or otherwise; I hate people like that.

Me, same line.

Y'know, 23yrold3yrold - y'never know.

http://edu.kauhajoki.fi/~juipe/Stuff/biggrin2.gif

Singing "lalalalalala"?

The link, or at least the original "giraffe theory" post, is worth reading to understand Michael's plight. In a nutshell, the hypothesis is that there exist a large number of invisible alien creatures (which resemble giraffes somehow) that live on the far side of the moon whose primary purpose is to make one side of the moon face the earth at all times. In doing so, these "giraffes" are saving humanity from destruction.

It's a trap. And Michael, being a newbie to these debates, fell right in. He proceeded to argue that science has a perfectly reasonable theory that explains this phenomenon (tidal lock), and so the existence of these creatures makes no sense. I'm not sure he has realized that he's using the same type of arguments used to "disprove" the existence of God. And so if he has every faith in his line of argument, how can he discount similar arguments about God?

Mono/Polytheist and Atheist are all at an impasse because Religion is about faith in god(s) or lack-thereof whose observation or lack of observation cannot be readily predicted or tested. Science requires theories that can be tested by predicting certain positive observations, and then making those observations to see if the theory still stands.

Science is about competing, evolving theories that can undergo small tweaks or complete overhauls. Science is about willingness to be wrong. This is one reason why science is so powerful.
Religion (atheism is also a religion in this context) is about certain fundamental beliefs that cannot be changed without forming another religion. Religion is always about being right (about these fundamental beliefs.) This is one reason why religion is so powerful.

A more interesting discussion is about intelligent design ("neo-creationism") vs. evolution. In some ways a more complex discussion.

Thanks for the insight guys -- I appreciate it, I think I'll give up on the giraffe topic for now and maybe look for a serious post by this sinbad person -- I tried making the no water, no oxygen, no food comment too, and a couple of others and explaining why the moon is always facing the earth and I know most of them are joking and not taking it seriously but I really think they should -- I suppose it's my fault for thinking that. Anyways -- Thanks guys.

Well, science can't explain a lot of events in Christianity or things about it which are backed by other evidences (archeological for example), which I won't go into great detail here about since Religious Threads Are Evil. But yeah, I see what you mean.

Yeah, I used to be big on that topic until I realized it didn't matter

If science could explain everything, then we wouldn't have this debate... we would be gods of the universe.

Isn't there a Stephen Hawking quote like that?

The problem is when people dismiss things as impossible because science can't explain them. Walking on water, for example. Feeding five thousand with a few loaves of bread. Prophecy. The Red Sea parting. That sort of thing. A certian breed of individual thinks that these things are scientifically impossible so the Bible must be lying (considering God non-existent a priori, of course ).

OTOH, people try to say we have science to explain things that used to be attributed to God. Which I guess is what you were trying to say up there. Some people even tried to do that in the last religion thread, like saying people attributed flying birds to God or some other nonsense Not true at all, of course ...

I had an arguement about this once with my friend. I said that everything in the universe could be explained with logic, and therefore the universe works in a logical manner and not randomly. He said that there are things in the universe that are purely random and science could never explain, but i disagree. Why? I have no real basis, just that based on past experience of human existence many concepts have been invented to solve some of natures wierdest mysteryies. It would certainly be revolutionary if something in the universe acted truly randomly.

Randomness? What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; does that count? I pretty much agree with you, anyway ...

I have a question for the physics whizzes; if the universe is infinitely old, would it not have succumbed to entropy? Something I've wondered and never gotten an answer for ...

Did he cite women as an example?

But logic cannot prove everything. It cannot prove our existence. How did it all begin? Science would tell us that nothing can be created out of something. (Ok, I'm sure someone has some sort of bizarre "scientific" way to make money grow on trees...) But logic would tell us that everything has a beginning place and nothing lasts forever (ie, eternity past).

So, at some point, you have to exercise faith in how we got here (or just not give any care). After that, it's quite easy to justify any sort of belief.

Ok, i suck at physics and am probably going to fail my physics 2 midterm tommorow, but how about this for an explanation.

The universe is constantly expanding, so after an infinite amount of time entropy should take its toll and all the atoms should be infinitely apart or something along those lines. But maybe the universe expands for a time, then for unknown reasons, contracts back to a single point of matter and energy. Then it explodes again and the process starts all over. This would explain why entropy hasnt forced all the atoms apart. of course now we have to deal with why everything would come back together again,. but oh wel.

You probably wont like my theory on that, but i say things always existed. Our reality existed an infinite time ago and will exist and infinite time from now. Its incomprehendable for the human mind, so i usually dont bother to think about it.

It's illogical that something logical cannot be comprehended by any human mind.

I pity you.

OK, if you want my opinion, here goes: I have been christened, but I hardly ever think religious thoughts. I have reached no conclusion as to whether I personally believe in God. But, on the premise that God exists, serious Christianity is a bit of a joke really (the same goes for any religion). God just wants to go about his business. He doesn't want people across the world praising him day in day out - have you ever thought how annoying it must be? The Monty Python folk had the right idea.

Now we just need Shawn to post and confirm how annoying it is to be idolised everywhere he goes.

DUMB is the best music lib I've ever used. bows down

Why thank you kind sir.

The theory of quantum mechanics revolves around chance. E.g. the location of an electron in an atom is governed by a probability curve or something like that (I'm not a physicist.) In other words, QM says certain things in the universe does act truly randomly. Einstein had a famous quote: "I do not believe that God plays dice." The general consensus is that he does.

This certain breed of individuals are too narrow-minded. They should examine another possibility: that humans are fallible, and so there may be some misinterpretation or exaggeration. If someone was in awe, and I mean truly in awe, of something, and he was going to tell his friends all about it, one can easily imagine the human tendency to exaggerate.

My first comment is that cosmologists believe that the universe is somewhere between 13-17 billion years old, not infinitely old. Second, if the fate of the universe is that it'll grow forever (the fate of the universe is still under intense debate), it'll be many, many trillion years before it truly fizzles out. We have a long way to go.

I totally agree with science here. Even I can create nothing! Obviously you meant the other way around, that something can be created out of nothing. Well at first glance, science says this is possible! Relativistic quantum field theory states that "there is a finite probability that a
particle-antiparticle pair -- such as an interacting electron-positron -- can be created from a vacuum."

I don't think this is logic. It was once generally believed (and many people probably still believe) that there always was and always will be the universe. This position seems to me just as logical. Rather, observation would lead us to believe that the (current) universe had a beginning. If the sun seems to have existed for all of human recorded time, why not infer that it was always this way? Or why not infer that the sun might not have existed in the past? Does logic determine which position is correct? Or do we deduce from observation and not logic that one of these positions is more correct.

Disclaimer: "vacuum" doesn't necessarily mean total absence of matter or energy. "At first glance..."

And I agree with you for agreeing with me. Ok, so I meant to say "nothing can be created from nothing".

By "nothing" (the second one) I mean a total absense of anything. Like void. Nothing. So even, if we want to say something can be created from a "vacuum" (which is something, not nothing) - then we have to say that "vacuum" existed forever.

Which brings me back to the whole point of the "creation" or "starting point" of the universe is unscientific.

Don't use a disclaimer there! That made everything you said about something and nothing worth nothing. Or something like that.

But I agree with what you previously said. The topic of the beginning of time (or whatever it shall be called) is much more fascinating than that of "god" vs "no god".

That was my point

Most of what Jesus did (for example) was in public and before many witnesses. The Bible isn't just telling stories

I wasn't refering to any comment you made. It's just something I've wondered about.

The uncertainty principle has to do with certain types of observabels, not with wether or not the laws of physics are statistical: for instance, you can't know about the momentum and the location of a particle at the same time with a high degree of accurately, and determining one of them radically alters the other (in an unpredictable way).

As plucky said, the universe isn't infinitely old. However, as it ages, the entropy will always grow. What I think you mean is if the universe will succumb to heat, since an increase in entropy is an increase in heat?
I guess that would depend on the rate of cooling due to the expansion of the universe...

Personally I think the universe is infinite in size and time, but it's not filled with matter.

We can se thousands of galaxys and calculate the age of their matter and how these galaxys expand from a common center. If we call our collection of galaxys a universe, what is there that says there can't be more than one universe?
If there would be more than one, would we have to make a new name for the infinite void or for this collection of galaxys.

What would happen to light that reaches the end of the universe(assuming there is and end)?
Would it turn back, wrap to the other side, or crash like into a wall and make it expand.

And a side note. I've passed 300 posts, I was thinking about doing something special on nr 300, but I rushed past it and now I'll have to wait to nr 400. Hmpf!

Like biverse or triverse or verses.....?

How do you tell how many posts you have?

and I have another question too -- I've heard different scientists saying different things, one said that we have seen the edge of the entire universe and that we can see all of it etc (and thats what I thot I learned in HS! that it was spiral shaped or something), and the other said something like no we havent we just keep looking out farther and farther and finding more planets and more things and blah -- any help?

It's our galaxy that's spiral-shaped, not the universe

What would be interesting would be if it was possible to calculate the probability of evolution. Or what I mean is certain stages in evolution - ones that there is no half-way stage eg from a single pump system into a double pumb circulation system. I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution but if it was calclated as something like 10^(some large number) well then trillions of years is nowhere near long enough. Abviously this type of calculation would be impossible but ut was just a thought...

wait a minute -- I'm probably wrong but isnt our galaxy the one with 9 planets in it and a sun? or is a galaxy a collection of these, uh units, and what are these units called then?

anyways -- I still heard some wierd scientist say that we've allready seen every star or something along those lines -- I could be remembering wrong -- anybody have any idea what he was talking about?

edit: you're quote is hillarious gnolam...

A galaxy is a collection of stars, IIRC... Our sun/star is only a (very small) part of our galaxy.

A galaxy is a collection of stars. People refer to the sun (a star) plus the planets and whatnot as a solar system.

Ick! sounds like you need to read up on your astronomy

A solar system is a system of planets orbiting a sun, and galaxies are huge collections of stars, dust etc (ours is the spiral galaxy "Milky Way").

what is the smaller part called?
edit: oohhhh right -- I suppose I could have paid more attention in science class in school....

[over-simplification]If you point a telescope out into space you will receive light from every star that's in your field of view, basically (weaker and more red-shifted the farther away they are, naturally)... it's just a matter of making anything out of those weak signals... and if you get to the point where you can't see any background light beyond what you're pointed at, you've reached the edge.[/over-simplification]

Here's one story about it

That's a solar system. A galaxy is the collection of very many solar systems. The galaxy that our solar system is located in is the milkyway.

Mars: didn't read my previous post or his edit, huh?

Uhm? Can a fix non-moving star be red-shifted? Distance shouldn't have anything to do with it, or am I wrong again?

more like the last 5 posts

mental note must remember always to refresh before posting

Nope. Distance has little or nothing to do with it. It's red or blue shift depends on weather you or it is moving away or towards it or you. (i'm sure that makes lots of sense... cough)

gah, I haven't really kept my astronomy up-to-date since high-school

But IIRC all stars as seen from Earth are red-or-blue-shifted (almost all are red, but some are blue because of peculiar motion etc), right..?

[EDIT]
And distance has something to do with it - the stars the farthest from us are normally those that have had the most difference in velocity compared to us.

Red-shift is the optical version of the Doppler Effect. An object moving quickly enough will cause light reflected off it to shift in wavelength, depending on the direction it's moving relative to the observer.

Edit: Thomas: its

Not nessesaritly.. What if a star that was flung from its galaxy speeds by our solar system (really really fast). Now, I doubt its distance has anything to do with the color shift.

edit: AAAAAHHHHH!!!! Its the attack of the spelling nazis.

so is gnolam's over simplification wrong?

Only as mush as any over simplification is. (ie: no)

You've seen this happen a lot I presume?
Notice I said normally, and with "the farthest from us" I mean like in other galaxies

so if I understand you're trying to say they've seen the edge of the universe but it's not like it's all been examined or anything?

edit:

the second it's should probably it has, can you write it's for an it has? (checking with the grammer people)

Distance, itself, has nothing to do with relative star velocity. Howeer, there appears to be a trend that stars further and further away from us appear to have greater and greater red shift... implying that stars are moving away from us faster and faster. A big cosmological debate these days is to explain this observation. e.g. is space-time stretching, causing "anti-gravity"?

Not only that, but some researchers that were trying to measure the matter in the universe noticed that the galaxies and whatnot at the edge of the universe are speeding up. (not slowing or staying at a constant speed as some/most thought)

edit:

Yeah, I've seen that one episode of "The Sliders" A couple times.

Michael: both your "it's"'s are fine. Grammar has an a though

Earth is one of nine planets orbiting the Sun. Some of these planets have one or more moons. Some of them have rings.

The Sun, aka Sol, forms the heart of the Solar System and is one of billions(?) of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, many of which have planetary systems of their own. The galaxy is disc-shaped and has spiral arms where the stars are brighter, denser or both. If you dark-adapt your eyes for long enough, you may be able to see a strip stretching around the sky (much like the one I created in my second 20-line game); you are looking along the plane of the Milky Way. Incidentally the plane of the Solar System does not lie in the plane of the Milky Way; it is steeply inclined.

Other galaxies are a long way away and are quite small in the night sky. You need binoculars at least, perhaps a telescope, to see any. The nearest and brightest is the Andromeda Galaxy (I can't remember which constellation it lies in (i.e. which stars it appears near to from Earth), but I could look it up).

The Universe is expanding. The red-shifting of distant objects as they move away from us is analogous to the way in which a car engine sound gets lower-pitched when the car moves away.

I wonder why I bothered writing all that... I must be bored

Yep me too. I always thought everyone knew this type of stuff. (or maybe I have actually been learning something in my lessons physics after all...)
Personally I find physics on the microscopic level much more interesting than on the macroscopic.

Personally, I used to watch WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much 'Discovery'. (oh, and TLC when it wasn't the commercial whore it is now)

Well you can't see the edge of the universe.. you can only see as far as the speed of light allows. What you might percieve as the edge is is really not the edge at all... it may have been millions and billions of years ago, but the edge of the universe at this moment (and its arguable when this moment actually is) is invisible to us simply because light has not had nearly enough time to reach us from there so that we can actually see it. There are likely billions of stars so far away that light they emit has not had time to reach us... the enormous expanse that the universe is makes it unknowable, no matter how technologically advanced we become. There are many more tangible theories that agree with this.. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, for example.. (the liar's paradox)

And in the vein that this thread started in, I'm an Atheist.. and I agree with Matthew that a debate between a theist and an atheist is pointless except as an intellectual pursuit. (took years to come to that conclusion) BUT! I can make some interesting points for both sides... it's interesting to think about the laws of nature, and how measurable and predictable they prove to be under enough scrutiny. Of course there are things that are still beyond our grasp, but if you accept the assumption that all things in nature are ultimately measurable, and governed by natural constants (like physics).. and if you subscribe to the idea of a "beginning" as opossed to an infinite time-line, if you were to go back to this "begining" and set time in motion again.. wouldn't the very same time-line reoccur being that nature behaves in constant and measurable ways (presumably)? And would that not prove the concept of free-will to be false?

Of course there are a thousand ways to argue for and against that... just something interesting to chew on though..

I'm quite the opposite

Oh c'mon.. you have to give it up for the Bosons.:P

Actually I used to wonder about that a lot, (not the free will part tho this is the first time I've heard that), not to argue or anything but just because the same situation keeps reoccuring does that mean you don't choose your reactions? just because you choose the same ones everytime (based on your experience I suppose?) doesn't mean it's not you choosing it right?(just curious)

I think there is a certain amount of randomness in the way people sometimes act, maybe I'm using the wrong word for randomness, and I really just mean unpredictability.... not sure

OT: I used to also wonder things along this nature of things happening the same way that IF you could go back in time, would it be like a movie playing where you cant interact with people and things and you'd be able to walk thru people and stuff -- that would be interesting.....

This was a popular scientific viewpoint prior to the 20th century. Newtonian Physics implied that nature was deterministic and so people wrangled over the free will problem much more than today. In the 20th century, quantum mechanics says that nature is not so. Nature is probabilistic (see my point above about Einstein's quote about God and dice) and in certain ways not truly measurable.

Actually I hear the "free will" argument a lot. It has got to be the most boring discussion in history. I would sooner argue over who is the hottest Spice Girl, or even best pizza toppings.

I find it interesting 23, sorry. Although I may find the hottest spice girl more interesting under the right circumstances...

And as for quantum mechanics, I think it's bunk. Just because we don't have a means to observe something without disturbing it doesn't mean, left to their own devices, things will still behave in a "probabilistic" manner. And then you come to the tree falling in the forest scenario. To me quantum mechanics means that the universe is unknowable, like I said before. You can't know something without observing it, and you can't observe something in it's natural state because the act of observing causes a disturbance. We can, however, observe the behavior of a system composed of unobservable elements without influencing the system. And from those observations you can derive the laws governing the system, which can only be "macro-laws" consisting of the unobservable forces at work in the system. Of the laws we've been able to describe with more certainty, they are all deterministic in nature. To suggest that there is a "probabilistic" force at work flies in the face of well grounded observations to the contrary. How is it possible that a system behaves in a predictable manner if it's constituents are truly random in nature? If you call something "probabilistic" you might as well call it "God". Probabilities by definition are a means to understand something you haven't directly meausred... to me, probabilities and God stop short of the truth, for lack of a better explanation.

It's my oppinion that you can't know ANYTHING. You can belive or think something is ture/false etc... but you can't absolutely know.

Just IMO.

YES!! Exactly! Do you have any idea how hard I have had to pound this into some people's skulls?!

This is where I hate athiests that say faith is for the weak (most recently told me on GameDev). Everyone needs faith in something to believe it's true; very little in this world is proven beyond doubt.

And since no one answered Michael Jensen (unless I missed it), your post count is in your profile.

Oh I forgot one... You can also think you know... But you're usually fooling your self.

23: I think about this crap way too much.. In fact I get to a point where my mind goes blank and time seems to stop and everything seems so miniscule, me, you, the universe... ja. I think about allot way too much.

edit:

w0w. Were on a roll! Thats two things weve agreed on so far!! w0w.

I just can't let that by ... intelligent design is IMO even less valid than some flavors of creationism. It attempts to be scientific on the surface (mainly to pollute classrooms, it seems), but makes an innately non-provable claim, is started by crusaders against science, and furthermore is based off false premises, like the really stupid "irreducable complexity" thing and their mousetrap argument that was so easily turned against them.
If you want to believe that God helped evolution work, by all means believe it! ... just don't make up random unscientific crap to justify it, get no scholarly publications, then try to convince the school system to adopt your ideas as a valid enough to reach down to basic science high-school class-rooms.

... sorry for the tangential rant, but Ohio was attacked by these nuts recently ... I got excited.

Anyway, it's good to read religious debates here ... reminds me how intelligent and reasonable the crowd tends to be!

And yeah, the "free will" argument does suck. I've found the ceiling to be 100% of the time more interesting than that discussion ...
(then again, my ceiling is pretty. It's all white and stuff )

?? ?? ??

Personally I find it very easy. If God exists (yes ) and if the Earth is billions of years old, ID == true. It also avoids all the pitfalls that "pure" evolution has, like the odds.

I wouldn't bang "irreducable complexity"; every time I've seen mathematicians (non-Christian ones, I might add) and evolutionists butt heads on this topic, the mathematicians make evolution look like a joke And what's the mousetrap argument?

Math is realtive. Count the number of attoms in the universe, then tell me how belivable those mathmaticians are. There isn't even a name for that number Becides "really really really large". Trying to explain something based on math and odds makes no sense. Especially odds. The fact that you can give something 'odds' means its possible, no matter how unlikely, Its bound to happen.

Well that "agreeing" thing was fun while it lasted ...

Really? IMO nothing is impossible. But things can be Improbable.

Serriously, think about how long eternity is... Anything can happen given enough time.

Agreed TF,

If you have an infinite number of rednecks, riding in the back of an infinite number of pickup trucks, shooting an infinite number of road signs with their infinite shotguns, they will eventually spell out all of the entire contents of the Old Testament in brail!

(EDIT - spelling/grammar/presentation/emoticons/content)

[EDIT - I decided to put that ^ in my sig.]

Au contraire! Quantum mechanics is a model developed to fit observations and to predict observations that have since been confirmed. It is considered a very strong theory... at least as strong as Einsteinian physics because it predicts well grounded observations so well. If quantum mechanics "flies in the face of well grounded observations to the contrary", then the theory would have been shot down decades ago.

I agree.

I agree.

If I exist (yes ), and if the cat sitting in front of me is only 1 yr old, then surely I must have designed the cat. There's a difference between "I believe God designed life" and "Through logic and scientific observation, I can deduce/infer that God designed life." ID claims the latter. However when examining the logic and the evidence, ID's case is very weak. I think you're better off going with faith.

The argument in a nutshell is that the individual pieces of a mousetrap are useless; only when all the pieces are in place do you get a working design. Therefore this is evidence of ID, because how can evolution work if the individual pieces have no purpose and so no reason to be selected?. There are two interesting problems with this argument. One is that in the example given, the individual pieces of a mousetrap, like the spring or latch, are quite useful alone. Second is that there are tons of evidence of isolated biological pieces being quite useful without needing other pieces, and would of course be naturally selected due to there usefulness. Just because we so far can't determine the purpose of every little piece that also existed millions/billions of years ago doesn't mean no useful purpose existed then or even now.

I'll also mention an interesting article in the most recent issue of scientific amercan. It describes an experiment, similar to genetic algorithms, where a model was developed to mimic natural selection in trying to create certain types of electrical circuits. As a test of fitness, one can choose something like how well the circuit acts as a band-pass filter of two particular frequencies. Some interesting properties emerged: (1) It was able to recreate, without human interference, human, patented, solutions to a variety of circuit designs. (2) It was able to find designs of certain types of circuits superior to the best human designed ones (in the sense of how well the circuit works as intended). (3) Even "superior" designs showed particular attributes similar to biology... like totally useless portions of the circuit that has no apparent advantage.

[edit] I'll add that the authors of the sci-am article made no claim about how such an experiment is a big piece of evidence in favor of evolution. It was taken for granted that the evolution theory was strong enough.

[edit2] I forgot to comment about another quote:

You're not the only one to wonder... even physicists wonder! Quantum mechanics is a theory about small things like atoms. Many technologies were conceived of and developed using this theory, like electron microscopes. Einsteinian physics works great for the macroscopic world. Where these two giant theories collide and how they work together is a big conundrum. When you hear about "Grand Unification" theories, it is this problem physicists are trying to solve.

Ok.. My knowlege of Quantum Physics I basically limited to it's spelling... But doesn't it sortof state that nothing is truely random, and that anything is predictable?

right on! only it's the reverse there are some rules about the randomness but otherwise it isn't all that weird.

the universe expands because of generation of dark matter. what the scientist have seen is that the expansion is not slowing down in a way as much as one would expect.

earlier, there was also doubt that the universe would stop expanding. this goes beyond normal intuition of mathematics with evil cauchy sequences in non-newtonian space but it says with simple words "it's not gonna stop expand in time"

The first statement is simply a hypothesis that is a long way from being a strong theory. The dark matter theory came about because observations of spinning galaxies and how galaxies clump together don't match the observed amount of mass in these galaxies, assuming Einsteinian physics is correct. Perhaps there is mass that cannot be observed with the thechnology we have. Second, the reason why physicists expect the expansion to slow down is gravity. Gravity attracts mass, and so it explains why stars and gravities clump together. It also why many physicists in the early 20th century thought the universe will collapse back on itself. To explain why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than decelerating due to gravity by claiming new formation of dark matter doesn't make sense. Wouldn't creating more mass (from where?) increase the gravitational force and thereby slowing the expansion more?

Sqitching gears, here's an observation that quantum mechanics is able to explain:

Experiment: shoot a single electron towards a screen with two slits very close together. Put a photographic plate behind the screen that can detect an electron. What would you expect to see? Perhaps if the electron goes through a slit, you should see a point on the photographic plate, otherwise nothing.

Observation: A diffraction pattern is created (e.g. multiple lines or circles can be seen) with only one electron.

Discussion: Obviously newtonian physics has a lot of trouble explaining this observation. Fortunately we know how diffraction patterns are created. You need at least two sources. For example, when two rocks are thrown in a pond, their ripples will interact and interfere with each other, causing a particular wavefront. One rock thrown in a pond obviously doesn't do this. But following this logic, how can a single electron "interfere" with itself? Quantum mechanics offers this explanation: The electron went through both slits at the same time. The position of the electron can be modeled as a probability "cloud". Half of this cloud went through one slit, the other half went through the other slit! Only when the electron hits the photographic plate do we know what position it occupies at impact.

Quantum mechanics does not say a position of a particle cannot be observed. It only says you cannot predict it's position. Note that this contradicts newtonian physics, which relies on the fact that you can predict an object's position.

How can you call this science if you can't make repeatable observations of position? The answer is that though the predicted position is random, the probability function is not. E.g. one can't predict if the next coin toss is heads or tails, but one can predict that 50% of the time it's heads and 50% of the time it's tails.

I understand that Quantum mechanics can also accurately model things we can observe in nature, but I don't agree that it is an accurate picture of the the forces at work. I don't believe that it is possible to have a predictable system composed of random parts. I believe than when you resort to probability, you are compensating for a lack of knowledge. I believe that there is more to know, and that these probabalistic methods will give way to deterministic methods given more time and research.

I have no problems with this position.

This is what every physicist believed 100 years ago, that everything is deterministic. Yet since then, more research was done, and now most physicists believe that everything is not fundamentally deterministic. No deterministic theory has yet to adequately explain the diffraction observation above, for example. Believe me, many smart people have since tried.

I'll give you an example: the atomic clock. We'll use the common one based on cesium. The atomic clock works by measuring how often the cesium atom oscillates between two quantum mechanical states. (Note that quantum mechanics describe distinct states with nothing in between... no particle can occupy "in between" these states. And we have never observed any in-between states. A deterministic theory breaks down if it can't have infinite number of in-between states) Now which state the atom resides in is determined by probability. Yet when we measure this oscillation after exposing the atoms to a certain EM radiation, we find that the frequency of oscillation is incredibly predictable. So predictable that we have defined one second as 9,192,631,770 cesium quantum state oscillations per second.

How about another example: Statistical thermodynamics uses statistics to accurate describe and predict macroscopic things like temperature and pressure.

I understand that a statistical approach can lead to accurate results, and I understand the idea of Chaos Theory.. and how it can be applied to things like fluid dynamics, or this diffraction observation you mention, and even swinging pendulums that aren't always predictable via deterministic means. I figure quantum mechanics is the result of reaching a dead-end with determinism, where it became impossible to gather the data we needed to continuing making deterministic models. I'm beginning to repeat myself, though... we'll agree to disagree.

[EDIT]
Forgot to address the atomic clock. If we can say with certainty that there are that number of oscillations per second consistently, then wouldn't you think that this thing works a bit like clockwork? And that these quantum mechanical states are a "band-aid" so to speak?...A way to quantify the clockwork that is beyond our perception?

There are three basic conclusions one can make when there is no evidence of a deeper layer of understanding that would support a deterministic model. (1) There is no deeper layer that would support a deterministic layer, or (2) there is one, but we lack the technical ability to observe this evidence, or (3) I have faith that there is such a layer despite the lack of evidence, even if we never ever find any. I'll assume you subscribe the option 2.

However, I think that there is a problem with option 2. I have yet to hear of a logical deterministic hypothesis that is still able to explain the observations we do have and yet not contradict itself. For example one can argue that we see a diffraction pattern because the electron actually does split in two and then merge back together. Except this contradicts conservation of mass, a deterministic theory.

Also note how these three options are the same options with the question about the existence of God.

Careful here. You're starting to use meta-physical or philosophical arguments. Anyone can say the same thing about Newtonian physics, for example, or any other theory, deterministic or not. E.g. what is gravity? Is newtonian physics just a way to quantify a force that we observe but don't understand why it is present? Is it just a band-aid?

Anyways the observation of these quantum states is not beyond our perception. They can be directly measured. We can observe particles occupying state A and state B, but we don't see any particles occuping a state in between, but we know we are capable of such an observation because we can see state A and B.

Yes, option 2. I fail to see the connection between that option, and the question of God. Sure we don't have the technical ability to see God, and we never will.. He's simply a long enduring fantasy, IMHO. (this is something I won't debate with people, it's too played out)

But, I'm going to give you the last word, as this thread is becoming very long. You've proven to be bright and well-read.. nice talking with you

There are three stages of development for individuals and society.
Theology -> Metaphysics -> Science
It is not stupid to be a theologist, if you don't know any better. Just as you are not stupid to think metaphysically (Oil contains the ESSENCE of fire, so it burns), unless you know any better. Scientific thinking, though, is the ultimate truth. All others will fail in any attempt at success. Success is merely luck when you trust God to do it, because, damn it, he didn't do jack.

Well, that's my 2 cents anyways

God has claimed responsibility for the creation of the universe. Since God created the universe and we are a product of evolution (both of which I'm asserting for argument's sake ), then God used evolution to create us. You have no connnection to the cat.

The key word being "developed". An intelligently designed model, even

That's nice

And if you do? I've done a fair amount of research, thank you very much. I could say "you don't know any better" with just as much validity

The scientific method is quite lousy when applied to unique past events that can't be tested. And if God exists, science is completely incapable of finding him. Therefore, if science can't prove God, that don't prove squat Science and God aren't even at odds anyway; you think there's no such thing as a non-athiest scientist?

So much for ultimate truth

How do you see how many people posted on a specific thread? -- I'm wondering if this is any where near the amount of people who posted on the game in 20 lines of code thread..... (I think this one still has less not sure) anyways I told "sinbad" that I wasn't going to argue with him anymore -- While praying about it, I realized that if there are giraffe on the moon (and there arn't ) it has nothing to do with an argument for or aginst christianity and was just a silly thing to argue about, it was only addressed to christians to make us look stupid (worked on me )

Can't you see the reply number in the forum? Up to 95 now; I think the 20 lines of code thread got to 124 or so ...

Oh ok -- I didn't look there, I was just clicking on the hyper links that allegro.cc sends to my email.... thats all I do when I'm not that bored, and I didn't know carm.org had forums.....

You missed my point, of which I may not have been clear about. The difference between your argument and that of intelligent design is that yours is based on faith rather than science. Proponents of intelligent design argues that their whole line of reasoning does not require faith, just pure logic and scientific evidence. You start off with "God created the universe", a statement that can be attributed to faith rather than scientific evidence. Proponents of intelligent design would argue: because the design appeared to be so intelligent (not the model) we can deduce that God (or at least some super intelligent alien being) exists. This is different than arguing that someone designed evolution. In fact I would venture to guess that many Christian/Jewish/Muslim biologists reconcile God and evolution in this way.

The "scientific method" is not what's lousy. It's the paucity of evidence. This doesn't mean the evidence is not there. We find new evidence all the time. It's just that we don't know where to look, and for sure many pieces of evidence are lost. Unlike many physics experiments that can be duplicated very shortly, it takes time to find another fossil or vase or city wall or iridium particles etc.

Atheists should realize that disbelieving in God is a faith as well. Which is why they don't get any further than Muslims when arguing with Christians.

Must evidence always be "scientific" to be evidence?

They should, but they never do.

Here's a question; not a challenge, just something I'm curious about. What does genetics have to say about inherited knowledge? Y'know, like a spider spinning a perfect web first try, or bees understanding that dance they do (some guy needed 20 years to decipher it). If anyone here knows of such things.

Atheism has different flavors, you might refer to them as weak and strong. Weak atheism is what you're describing (Plucky)... someone asserting themselves as an Athiest by denying the assertions of others.

Strong Atheism is asserting that you believe in a universe governed by natural law.

The word Atheism itself is unfair, because by definition it means anti-theist... a weak assertion.

Which requires faith, like it or not

I thinking we're pushing the "close me" standard for reply counts ...

You seem so certain...

Not as certain as I. When people start talking about the number of posts in a thread you know it's going bad. Ok, not always.

Anyway, if any of the people still reading the posts here want to continue, there's always PM. (Or someone else's boards. You're using up my hard drive!)