This is an archive of a previous version of Sodarace.

forum  |  »» sodaplay

»» forums  »» artificial intelligence forum subject: Evo, vs crea, 497 replies on 34 pages. most recent reply: Mon, Aug 27 8:06 PM by cactus2

»» back to topic list

This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 34  | » ]

»» previous topic   »» next topic

sodawhat »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 21-Nov-03 20:42   »»  Frodnonnag, You really shouldn’t talk about subjects you don’t know about and state it as fact. We as Jehovah's Witnesses follow the bibles teachings in full as we understand them. We haven’t ever or would ever add or take out anything from the holy scriptures (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18). I belive your reference is to James 2:26 “Indeed, as the body with out spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” The wording in your own copy of the bible may be different, because we use modern English (New world) rather then the older English (old world), but the idea is the same. If you read a little before that scripture in verse 14-17 you get the complete idea though, 14“Of what benefit is it my brothers, if a certain one says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith can not save him, can it? 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of you says to them: ‘Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,’ but you do not give them the necessities for their body, of what benefit is it? 17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.” (James 2:14-17) And no we don’t think we can save ourselves by what we do (Ephesians 2:8-10) but as 2 Corinthians states “I exercised faith, therefore I spoke.” (2 Corinthians 4:13; Psalms 116:10) Also Hebrews 13:15 “Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips which make public declaration to his name.” That is why you will see us spreading the word of God not because we can earn a reward. I hope this clears up the misconception you had.

the_duck »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 21-Nov-03 23:29   »»  Hi, everyone. I found sodaconstructor about a year ago and made some models, then left for other things. But now I'm back, and I think I can answer some of CoolDude's questions. Here we go: 1. How did matter get compressed like that? The big bang theory says that the universe basically started off infinitely compressed. All the matter in the universe _began_ that way. It had nowhere else to go. 2. Why did it explode? That's what compressed stuff does, if there is nothing to keep it compressed 3. If it was the beginning of the universe, what created it? If you believe the big bang theory, there's no point in asking that. All information about anything previous to the big bang was lost. What's north of the north pole? Personally, I believe that the answer is nothing. A void. Not even time or space. That seems weird but special circumstances require special explanations. 4. If it was made of hydrogen and helium, what caused it to turn into all of those elements that are on the periodic table? I've never heard of helium turning into Lithium from natural forces. It's called fusion. It is happening in the Sun as we speak. 5. Is this really the best explanation you have? Do you have a better one? ;-) All astronomical data seems to suggest that all matter was compressed infinitely at some point.

greenswampdog »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 22-Nov-03 00:17   »»  There is a discovered, and useless organ in the human body. I forgot it's name (Ha ha) but it was something of a third stomach. It's in our intestine and very small (about thumb size) now but some scientists think that back in time, this organ helped us digest the tough things that we ate back then. We had to eat tough things to survive. Why would that be there if it does nothing?

Blueyoshi321 »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 22-Nov-03 01:39   »»  It is called the appendix. Since it was not harmful (though, true, not helpful either) it was not removed by evolution.

evilgoatfiend »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 01:21   »»  CD, you cannot expect that because a computer can skip certain numbers and make sentences that they were specificly engineered by God. I'm sorry, but that's not worthy of any further comment. Honestly, why would God, hide parts of the bible to be revealed later? Frod, I'll break my responses to you in chunks likewise to yours, so they corelate. 1.You really didn't go into why a cult is different. You say it is because it has unreal expectaions and just makes things up, I'm sorry but I'm still waiting for how that is different. The only main thing I can think of, is Christianity is better at it, that's why it's taking so long for people to figure it out. I cannot state everything I believe but I can give ideas. If you weren't around for my post, I'm an atheist, I lied about being a semi-Christian to see if it would validate my arguements to you. It failed, so I talking honestly 100%ly now. I believe in evolution, but right now I most want to simply pursuade you that God is nonexistant. I believe that the two meanings of each of right and wrong are the same. That right as in correct and as good mean the same thing and that wrong as in incorrect and immoral mean the same thing. This is not fully portrayed in society but I believe it got lost somewhere along the way of life. There is a truth to every question or it is irrelevant, the only reason we don't know it is lack of knowledge, lack of honesty, or lack of communication. I also believe that there is a point to life, just not yours. A lot of the rest of my beliefs can be found in my posts, so please read any of them you haven't read (I know mine are lengthy, but I read all of yours, and do my best to explain my situation). 2. Read it again slowly, I don't believe in God, and now I am being perfectly honest. I wasn't manipulating before, I was being gradual, quite the contrary. And secondly, I don't beleive in a God of chaos, there doesn't have to be a God for there to be an existance. I'll contiue on in the next paragraph... 3. You must understand, that anything that transforms chaos into something other then chaos is chaotic, it's orderly, but only has chaotic sources to work with. Evoluition isn't chaos, it's stability. May I quote one of my earlier responses that illustrates how a "shot in the dark" can become so much more at a rapidly accelerating rate "Evolution doesn't require random perfection in every step it takes, it finds more stable structures (more suriving, more durable, whatever you call it), simply by the fact that randomness has no unified power, that is part of it's definition as being what it is. But we also know that because of it's randomness, anything can be created as a result, just any one particular result is infinitly improbable compared to the infinite amount of other choices. But if a percentage of said infinity is what we are looking for, then it is that percentage that we use, not each possible outcome in that percentage indivisually. That percentage may very well be very little, but amplified by the long length of time provided, and an infinitely random frequency of testing numbers for that probability (making very high rates of passage very possible), that percentage becomes a lot more likely. But more then that, the first time that percentage of partial stability is hit, it has an immediate advantage over the other randomness, so dramatically becomes increasingly more likely, until it becomes a stable life form." I'll use the army anolgy (I'm not sure if I already said it, but I'll say it again). Two armies, both relativly equal in resources. One army, uses logical strategy to defeat the other, while the other attacks randomly (in direction and target). Which wins? The logical army! The same comparison can be made about stability, by defintion the stable group would be better at being stable, thus lasting the test of time. And that's why, chances rapidly increase once the "percentage is hit". And obviously logic and ilogic isn't that clear cut, rather more gradual, but think about it like squaring a random number, dramatically increasing with value, creating and notable seperation between high and low numbers. About the appendix, that's an arguement for evolution, God wouldn't create the unessecery or imperfect, while that shadow of a previous purpose in a different form supports evolution About the big bang, don't tell us why that doesn't exist (you don't have the facts, it wasn't an explosion it was a releasal, and it wasn't limited to few elements, or even types of matter), or at least don't tell me, because I don't support the traditional theory anyway. In addition scientist are just saying that that is here best hypothesis, not that it is absolute truth. Somehow you have the idea that if the big bang theory didn't work that would be an excuse for God to exist. You don't get it. WHY SHOULD GOD EXIST? WHAT TELLS YOU? WHY? FAITH IS AN UNRELIABLE PART OF THE FLAWED HUMAN PSCHE, NOT AN EXCUSE. PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOURS IS MORE VALID THEN ANY OTHER, AND MORE VALID THEN LOGIC ITSELF. Do not rely on the bible for answers, it may have an opinion about everything, but it doesn't mean that those opinions are right, ours however are backed up by reality.

TC23 »» models »» homepage Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 02:00   »»  It's like saying that I am going to wake up at 6:30 tomorrow morning. Well, suppose there are two people. One has faith in the fact that I will, in fact, wake up at 6:30 tomorrow morning, and the other says I will not wake up at 6:30 tomorrow morning. Now, the latter doesn't care when I wake up tomorrow morning, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be 6:30. Similarly, I don't know if the Big Bang started the universe or not, but I don't think God created it. I think evolutionist's ideas are also much more logical and accurate than a 2,000 year old book made by some shepherds who wanted the peasants to act more civilized than they were. That is truly the way religion began, and it was an effective way to make the great masses of simpletons to not fear death, to work harder and have better ethics, and to fear Creators and those associated with Creators; namely, those belonging to the Catholic church. Buddha did the exact same thing, however his way worked much more efficiently, however it had no need for a deity in its path of life prescribed by the Ten Precepts and other documents, which can explain the number of Buddhists in the world today. People are afraid of dying and they need something to lean on to keep living. If you can pull the wool out from over your eyes and see the fact that deities don't and never existed, then you will truly know how to live life.

CoolDude »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 04:57   »»  Still, though, no one has explained the Big Bang thoroughly. You say that the Big Bang started at the beginning of time, even though there was no such thing. Then you say that it was compressed, just because. Then, you say that it decompressed because there was nothing to keep it compressed. If this is so, then why is it that everything "compressed itself" if there was nothing to compress it in the first place. Now, I know that many reject religion because it may defy science. But, the Big Bang defies science, too. I mean, all of the matter in the universe magically compressing itself during the nonexistant era of the beginning of time doesn't seem to be a valid explanation. Think about it, there cannot be a beginning of time. To me, the Big Bang makes 0 sense. If you think of an alternative, like Creationism, things actually do make sense. It's a contradiction; you reject Creationism because you think it doesn't make sense, while you believe in evolutionism and the Big Bang when it makes no sense at all. Believe me, if someone were to explain it so thoroughly that there was no room for error, I would believe it. But, that hasn't happened, and it never will. Now, there is the Bible code. What some of you think is that you can compare the amount of K's in a book with sentences and phrases that are 100% accurate. As I said before, the chances of one correct sentence by mere coincidence are 685 billion times 1 billion. Now, for one hundred sentences to be accurate, there is a 1 in 68,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance (I think that's accurate). Now, there are overwhelming odds that at least three K's will appear in a novel, so I don't find that metaphor to be valid. Plus, remember that not even the authors of The Bible knew that there was a code in what they were writing. In fact, one of the codes state that the code will be discovered by computers. That's a smart code. Also, remember that the Bible may have been written by many people, but the Word of God was what it really was. Now, I know that everone knows that adaption and evolution are different. Right, now, anyone can prove that animals have adapted. But, no one can prove that they have evolved. Even Darwin admitted that he couldn't find proof that one species can or will change into another (he said so on his death bed, I believe). And, for mutations, I haven't seen any animal keep a mutation. You don't see any three-headed frogs or ten legged snakes. If an animal has a mutation, the mutation carries with it until death, but no more than that.

the_duck »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 13:01   »»  "You say that the Big Bang started at the beginning of time, even though there was no such thing." How do you know?? Then you say that it was compressed, just because. How about this. Is it more likely that the universe came into existence in one point or in an infinite number of points at the same time? Then, you say that it decompressed because there was nothing to keep it compressed. That's right, there wasn't. Do you think there was some magical hand holding all the matter in one spot? "I mean, all of the matter in the universe magically compressing itself during the nonexistant era of the beginning of time doesn't seem to be a valid explanation." Again, there wasn't a magical hand squeezing everything down. And you still have no reason why the beginning of time is nonexistent. Now, about the Bible code. You say that the chances of finding one correct sentence in the Bible is 1 in 68,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Where is that number from? The Bible is a pretty long book, containing thousands of words, right? So, if i went through regularly, first throwing out every second letter, then every third, then every fourth, I'd be bound to get a phrase like "wright brothers plane" sometime. If I were to type thousands of random sentences, then followed my skipping procedure, I could probably generate a bunch of astounding phrases like "wright brothers plane," too. And to continue with the wright brothers example, thats not exactly a prediction. If tommorow I find a hidden phrase with my skipping procedure in an ancient book that says "rome will fall," that doesn't mean that author was telling the future. And now, on to evolution. You say no one can prove that animals have evolved. I'm sorry, but no one can prove they were created either. And animals don't magically transfer from one type of animal to another. A frog doesn't mutate into a giraffe. Darwin might have said he couldn't find proof that one species can or will change into another. But modern scientists can and have. They have unearthed thousands of fossils of animals in between two species, called transaitional fossils. And you say you haven't seen any animal keep a mutation. Well, how long have you been around? A couple years. How long has the earth been around? Over 4 billion years. Lets, see, you have been around for about 0.000000003% of the earth's life. Then you say: You don't see any three-headed frogs or ten legged snakes. Well, I have seen frogs with more that 4 legs. Drastic mutations like that often kill an organism. Helpful mutations are gradual. And lastly, you say that animals cannot pass on their mutations to their children. Again, I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Genetic mutations can and are passed on to their children. For example, people in Africa often have a genetic mutation that causes a mild form of sickle-cell anemia. As it turns out, this protects them from some diseases prevalent in Africa, like malaria. Whay do you think this beneficial genetic mutation would be so widspread unless parents could pass the mutation on to their children?

TC23 »» models »» homepage Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 21:02   »»  > Now, there is the Bible code. What some of you think > is that you can compare the amount of K's in a book > with sentences and phrases that are 100% accurate. As > I said before, the chances of one correct sentence by > mere coincidence are 685 billion times 1 billion. > Now, for one hundred sentences to be accurate, there > is a 1 in 68,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance > (I think that's accurate). Now, there are > overwhelming odds that at least three K's will > appear in a novel, so I don't find that metaphor to > be valid. Plus, remember that not even the authors > of The Bible knew that there was a code in what they > were writing. In fact, one of the codes state that > the code will be discovered by computers. That's a > smart code. Also, remember that the Bible may have > been written by many people, but the Word of God was > what it really was. Okay, now that's simply wrong. There are only 26 letters in the language, how many letters could be in the Bible? I don't feel like counting right now, but I believe many million. Just like if you stick a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, one of them is bound to write Hamlet, that doesn't mean God is manipulating them. I could find any long book, like The Complete Works of Theodore Sturgeon, and skip 100 letters and find something, I just don't care to because I don't think that someone that I don't believe in is in a place that doesn't exist putting encrypted predictions that no one will be able to find until they make something that can think for them. About the 7 legged frog, there is a mosquito that lays her eggs inside frogs and the babies grow off the frog and cause it to mutate, with many legs in places that it isn't aerodynamic to have a leg, so that herons would eat the frog easier and the food chain would keep going correctly, to the benefit of the mosquito.

CoolDude »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 23:14   »»  Wow, many people have responded already! I guess you really want to disprove me. I personally don't believe that if you leave a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, chances are that they will write Hamlet. I mean, wouldn't they die? And even if they couldn't die, the chances of them writing Hamlet are very, very low. I really don't think that that was a valid metaphore. I knew people would disprove of the Bible code. The truth is, that it doesn't just predict the Wrights brothers. It predicts almost everything that has happened. I mean, come on, it predicted the death of prime minister Rabin a year before he died! Now, I know that by skipping letters, you could find words, phrases, or even sentences in almost every novel, but they don't come true. They don't predict basically everything that has happened. Someone said before that the Bible was created by farmers, I think, that wanted to keep their people in order, or something like that. So, if the Bible is just a book, then why does it predict the future? Why has all of it's predictions come true (except for SOME of Revelations). Was it just luck? See, you people seem to rely on luck a lot. For example, you say that the Bible code is luck. You say that it was luck that made one planet suitable for life. It was luck that made random elements randomly form together to make life. According to you, it was just chance that that organism found a way to reproduce and evolve into other organisms. I personally think that's crazy. The odds must be so low, lower than you can imagine. Now back to the Big Bang. "The Duck" asked me how I knew that the Big Bang started at the beginning of time. The answer, I don't. I asked why other people think that it was the beginning of time. Now, if it wasn't the beginning of time, then what was before it? If there was nothing before it, then what created it? If nothing created it, then how did the universe start? There are just too many questions that need to be answered... but won't be. I really don't understand what "The Duck" was trying to say when he said, "How about this. Is it more likely that the universe came into existence in one point or in an infinite number of points at the same time?" I guess I'll let him explain it a little better. If there wasn't anything that held the Big Bang together, then it would explode. I get that. What I don't get is that if there was nothing holding it together, then how did it compress in the first place. Since there was no "magic hand" holding it together, then what did? That seems like a contradiction. My explanation to why there couldn't be a beginning of time is because if there was one, then what was before it? There would have to be something before it, since time is never-ending, right? But, if time had a start and end, then what created it? I doubt the Big Bang was the beginning of time. You see, my question is what was the beginning of time? If the Big Bang was, then what came before it? If something came before the Big Bang, then what created it and what is before that? Time, space, and infinity can't be here. They defy physics. Actually, only infinity is impossible, but time and space fall under that category. There are things that no one can explain. No one will. The only thing that makes sense is that there is a God who created everything.

Blueyoshi321 »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 23:23   »»  I think when they use the metaphor with the monkeys, they are excluding the fact that they would die. I mean, it's a HYPOTHETICAL statement for crying out loud!! *calms down* Now, if life had never formed, we wouldn't be here arguing about how it formed. Thus, since we are arguing, it is a given that this planet was good for life, and that the organisms on it found a way to survive. How do you know time and space are infinite? It has been theorized that space wraps around. If you traveled far enough in a straight line, you'd get back to earth (that's the theory anyway) How is it that God makes sense? If he is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If he created all, who created him? Your argument for why time is infinite is its own result. "My explanation to why there couldn't be a beginning of time is because if there was one, then what was before it? There would have to be something before it, since time is never-ending, right?" You're saying, "Time is never-ending, thus time is never-ending." Though logically correct, it makes 0 sense to use it in a debate.

TC23 »» models »» homepage Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 23-Nov-03 23:48   »»  > you people seem to rely on luck a lot. Sure we do. I'd rather rely on luck then God. Think, now, instead of using your finger's reflexes to prove your point. Listen closely. IT WAS 3 1/2 BILLION YEARS OF EARTH EXISTING BEFORE ANY LIFE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET BEGAN. Almost anything can happen in 3 billion years. This happened. Also, who told you that the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang? The universe existed, and by simple definition so did time. There was a super-compressed ball of energy and somehow it exploded, I don't know how it got compressed, why don't we hop in my time machine and go check it out? We can't. Inevitably, we'll just have to hypothesize. THE BIG BANG IS THE MOST LOGICAL ANSWER SCIENTISTS HAVE TO THE BEGINniNG OF MATTER. This does not mean it is true.

the_duck »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 24-Nov-03 01:13   »»  About the typewriters, no, I don't think that in the exact situtation TC23 mentioned would really happen. But, suppose the situation were slightly different. Suppose that every five minutes, someone killed off all but the monkey that was typing something closest to Hamlet. Then, they replaced the killed-off minkeys with copies of the good monkey, eventually, you would get some monkeys that were pretty good at typing Hamlet (keep in mind that this situtation is HYPOTHETICAL) . That's sort of how evolution works. You say that the Bible code predicts almost everthing. I don't think those thigs are really predictions. People only go looking for things that have already happened. No one tries to find something that says the wright brothers flew in 1902. They look for "wright brothers 1903". Hindsight is 20/20. (I am setting the assassination of Rabin aside as a special, lucky case. Unless you can come up with more _real_ predictions like that one I won't believe in the Bible's predictive powers.) Then you talk about how it must have been an extremely lucky event that created life on earth. I don't think so. Earth has been around for BILLIONS of years, and there are BILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of molecules in the sea. It had to happen some day. And while we're talking about the the early earth, let me brig up another point. Scientists have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that earth is several billions of years old. They have also shown that in the early earth, the only living organisms were primitive bacteria. Why would God sit around for billions of years with only the bacteria before he created humans? Now, I would like to address your last few paragraphs. You argue that there was no begining of time because if there was, then what came befroe it? The answer is that, at the begining of time, the concept of *before* has no meaning. The word "before" directly refers to time, but when there is no time, the word's meaning breaks down. I really don't understand what "The Duck" was trying to say when he said, "How about this. Is it more likely that the universe came into existence in one point or in an infinite number of points at the same time?" I guess I'll let him explain it a little better. Ok, I'll give it another go:). Suppose that at any given point there is a smal chance of the universe being created there. The question is: is it more likely that the universe was created at just one point or infinitely many points? The answer is that there is a finite probability of it being created at one point and an infinitesimally small probablity of it being created at infinitely many points. So, when you ask why all the matter was compressed, here is the answer: the entire universe consisted of one point. The matter didn't have a choice of whether to be here or there. There was only one spot it could possibly be in.

evilgoatfiend »» models Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 24-Nov-03 01:28   »»  First of all, you haven't answered MY questions (the ones in the all caps font). Just because the bible is a long book and somewhere in there sentences that we reconize are there, doesn't mean they were ordained by God. On infinite space-time, I never said that I believe in it, I was just saying how infinite things could get if you really stretched your imagination. I like thinking about things like that and I thought you would enjoy it. About the big bang, keep in mind what you're saying, you're saying, that you know more about science then thousands of scientist worldwide (you can't count Christians in the same manner because they are just followers, if I included everyone who believed in the big bang that would different). So I tend to believe that they are accurate. And even if they were wrong, it doesn't mean that God is the way the universe is created. They would revise their theory. Because it is no question that the universe was created, and it is no question that God is not the way. You STILL havn't answered my all caps font in my last post, so this is valid!!! I actually don't believe in the traditional big bang theory, more of the branch of inflation, and I also believe that pressure comes from the Cosmos, and like an system of pressure it could have very well built up to the point that was too much (which would result in a big bang), or could be a slow and gradual process (that could even still be occuring at the center of the universe, which we are not at). Both would lead to the same scientific result that shows and expanding centered at the center, and momentum from the center. How could Cosmic pressure build up? It could be continuly creating matter and energy to be released into "containers". Or it could be matter that was from another universe in the Cosmos, simply in movement for reasons we can't yet know. It could exist for the sole purpose of existing. Or it could be some kind of dept that is countered out in another universe, by black holes, indefinatly in debt, or to be returned when forces balance (the least favorqable of these). We don't really know, that's why we consider evidence to come the closest we can, religion however, does not, and cannot be respected as research or theory for that reason (and religion has been considered, and rendered to be nothing). Just because at the moment you have no solid points I'll take this time to point out some more things. If there is, in fact, bible code, then it would mean that every part of the bible is perfectly engineered. And even if there isn't Christians have the belief that it was written perfectly, indirrectly by the hand of God. According to the literal interpretation of the bible it also say the following: -the universe, the world, the sky, water, and life were created together, and there is no other astronomical bodies. -that at a certain altitude Heaven and God can be found, as well as angels, that fly in the same manner as birds. -that at a certain depth, Hell can be found, one in the same with the firey depths of this planet -the sun rotates around the Earth -crazy people have demons -that physically someone can live again -that the sea can turn to blood -that the sun can stop in the sky (not that the Earth can stop in it's turn, but even so) -that the Earh flooded -that there were no dinosaurs or trilobytes, or anything in a form other then it is Explain those, and I'm happy. Most all of these are rejected by modern society because they were proved to be wrong, but yet they are literally in the bible, and yet people find a way in their mind to ignore those parts. Or tell me how these parts "don't count".

TC23 »» models »» homepage Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 24-Nov-03 20:35   »»  Christians burned scientists at the stake for hundreds of years because they thought that the earth was round. It's just that religious people simply to not want to stare logic in the face, it contradicts religion and anything that does that should not be listened to.

This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 34  | » ]

»» previous topic   »» next topic   »» back to topic list  »» top of the page

PLEASE READ THE FORUM GUIDELINES AND ALWAYS PREVIEW TO CHECK MESSAGES BEFORE POSTING...
...Help keep our forums creative and constructive. Thank you.

»» forum home