Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

van_houtte
Member #11,605
January 2010
avatar

{"name":"uVQvU.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26a906da8ade7db11d8bd5f5efd78476.gif","w":504,"h":1648,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26a906da8ade7db11d8bd5f5efd78476"}uVQvU.gif

-----
For assistance, please register and click on this link to PM a moderator

Sometimes you may have to send 3-4 messages

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Neil Roy said:

with the exception of evolution

:o
Have you ever seen... Carl Sagan?

video

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

If there's no evolution, why would men and chimpanzees have 99 percent of genes in common? Is it god's way of messing with our heads? Did the devil do it to confuse us? And why was it hidden so well you need highly specialized techniques to find this out?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

If there's no evolution, why would men and chimpanzees have 99 percent of genes in common?

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Look at how similar men and chimpanzees are physically. Doesn't it stand to reason that 99% of their blueprints would match? Is that not something we could have assumed at the outset, regardless of origin?

It's like saying a 1972 Plymouth Barracuda is 99% the same as a 1974 Plymouth Barracuda. No kidding. I'll go get your prize for grasping the obvious.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

It's like saying a 1972 Plymouth Barracuda is 99% the same as a 1974 Plymouth Barracuda.

the '74 "evolved" from the '72, thanks for playing.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

How did it evolve? Did they leave it in primordial goo, or was it more like a Pokemon thing?

I'm pretty sure it was designed. I don't know. Maybe Plymouth is a scientific theory and not a business as I was previously led to believe? I don't get out much. Still doesn't address how something that's 99% like some other thing is 99% like some other thing, but maybe I'm wrong on that too. It is mid-week and I'm kind of tired ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Neil Roy said:

But when it comes to evolution ... the idea is still ridiculous and makes me laugh every time I hear someone say that something evolved.

Is there anything specific about it that is "ridiculous"? I'm not familiar with the views against the idea of gradual progression from single celled organisms to the complex masses of trillions of cells that my soul now embodies today. There is an alternative idea?

I only hope you're not referring to the idea that the world as it is in it's present form was instantiated 5,000 years ago with all the plants and animals, oil and fossils, mountains and fissures, and of course, humans. People who believe in that are typically brainwashed into it from a very young age and it's very difficult to reverse.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

gnolam said:

No, it's falsifiability. If it can't be proven wrong, it's not science.

Indeed. Or at least that it should be possible to prove it wrong.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

I'm pretty sure it was designed.

If we somehow found an extraterrestrial civilization, and they had a ground friction effect vehicle that was as similar to ours as a '72 Barracuda is to a '74, that'd be too incredible to believe. Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

Copy and paste? ;D

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

Why is the word "separately" in there? Pretending for a moment that the creation account is true, what assumptions can we make about the process? I'd say none ...

If I were the super-cheesy fundie type, I might think God made animals like man when He was trying to find him an appropriate partner in the Garden of Eden. That's a perfectly congruent theory I just yanked completely out of my butt (sorry about the smell). But ultimately, I got no clue. You got no clue. All I know is a look at a man and I look at a chimp and I think "Yup, that's pretty close" and move on, because it's meaningless. It can be explained without evolution. You could probably come up with as many congruent theories for it as there are theories of creation, ridiculous or otherwise. Something that can "prove" a multitude of theories strikes me as pretty poor proof, but hey ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Stephan Hawking would be having conniptions knowing his words were twisted in such a way. And Einstein muttered about "The Old One" and "God" in a metaphorical way, but he was a devout atheist.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Same for why a man is so similar to a chimp, if he was designed separately then why the similarity?

I'm pretty open to the idea that we're not entirely 'natural' and have had outside influence from extra-terrestrials. It's possible that our genetics have been modified, on purpose, by a significantly more advanced civilization. For what purpose, I do not know.

The evidence I see in support for that idea is the white skinned blue eyed creatures like myself. It's a bizarre strain, and the civilizations they have created seem more successful with their progress towards world domination than other strains. They've colonized the most land and have historically wiped out the indigenous populations as they go.

... but that's not going to turn me into a self-hating white racist :P It's equally as likely that this strain evolved naturally by adapting to their region of the planet. The survival mechanisms and physical traits they have would be a reflection of that.

[edit]

Neil Roy said:

I've already explained why I feel evilution is ridiculous

That seems to be your answer for everything ;D If you could link it, I'd believe you.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Admittedly, I don't know if he said those things, BUT, the points made in that video are still valid, no matter who said them.

Only if you trust the source of the video. A bunch of it could be mis-interpreted garbage. I didn't get past the text at the beginning with the lame "holy" music. I figured that was the best it was going to get and closed it.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Derezo said:

I'm pretty open to the idea that we're not entirely 'natural' and have had outside influence from extra-terrestrials.

Seems to me that's just a pseudo-science type of "god". Who created them?

Quote:

The evidence I see in support for that idea is the white skinned blue eyed creatures like myself. It's a bizarre strain, and the civilizations they have created seem more successful with their progress towards world domination than other strains. They've colonized the most land and have historically wiped out the indigenous populations as they go.

The people who moved into northern Europe needed to absorb more sunlight for vitamin D production, so natural selection favored white people. "What? Hit her up? She's got rickets! Eewww!" And they favored science over religion a bit more than the people who stayed in mellower climes, so they refined ships and projectile weapons more than the others. Guns, ships and germs conquered the world.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
avatar

@Neil: Here's an explanation of how evolution basically works.
We all know we originate from a combination of two cells: one from our mother and one from our father. Each of them carries half the genetic material of their respective parent. During the production of these cells, there is the possibility that a part of the genetic material mutates. This mutation, when given to the next generation, will trigger a change in one of the properties of the child. When this change has made the new organism a better one, the organism will have more chance of survival and will give the new property to the next generations. If it is a change for the worse, the organism won't stand a chance to survive, and the bad change won't get to the next generations. When this happens for generation after generation for a few thousands/millions of years, you get significant changes, like the specialized beak of a woodpecker.

I hope this is clear enough ;D

" There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo
"If your body was a business, thought would be like micro-management and emotions would be like macro-management. If you primarily live your life with emotions, then you are prone to error on the details. If you over-think things all the time you tend to lose scope of priorities." - Mark Oates

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

J-Gamer said:

If it is a change for the worse, the organism won't stand a chance to survive

Not "won't stand a chance" but a fraction of a percentage less likely to survive will add up over time. For instance, the organisms who could tell light from darkness, with no ability to focus, much less pass an eye chart with 20/20 vision.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
avatar

Thanks for correcting me :) That's what I actually meant... Let me rephrase that part:
When the change is for the worse, the organism will have less chance of survival, and will have less chance to give the bad change to the next generation.

" There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo
"If your body was a business, thought would be like micro-management and emotions would be like macro-management. If you primarily live your life with emotions, then you are prone to error on the details. If you over-think things all the time you tend to lose scope of priorities." - Mark Oates

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Edit: debate ended, at least for me. ;)

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Seems to me that's just a pseudo-science type of "god".

How does anything I said relate with the concepts of god or pseudoscience? It's just an idea, and there is no way to test it to make it scientific without ETs. Extra-terrestials -- life on other worlds -- is something that I do "believe" in, but I don't have any representation for what that belief consists of, so I'd rather not call it a belief. However, I feel that I have an understanding that we are one star in a massive network of hundreds of millions of stars that make up our single galaxy. I understand that very few of these are capable of harbouring advanced lifeforms like myself, but I imagine that our own galaxy is teeming with other life. While there is no constructive, physical evidence of this, there is a significant degree of circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence, convincing observations, etc. I could go on and on about that, but there's really no point. What I have said has proven nothing, and was not intended to prove anything.

Quote:

Who created them?

ERROR: SHARED MEANING FOR SYMBOLIC ENTRIES WERE NOT FOUND FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS
Who
Created
Them

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I understand evolution completely

Also doubtful.

[EDIT]

OTOH, I'm amazed by how close our ideas about coding are. Maybe it's because we started with old Borland crap on an old 8088 compatible etc.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.



Go to: