31 Dec 2008, 1:17 am
pakled wrote:
I don't think we have the final answer on evolution or the Big Bang. A few years back I read about scientists postulating that the universe would simply expand and cool until it reached 0 Kelvin (or peace in Israel, or whatever...
Part of the problem seems to be that each camp must deny the possibility that the other camp has a leg to stand on Whether creation and evolution are the final answer, I don't know. We'll eventually have more answers, but one thing about being an old f%^t, you see a lot of 'accepted wisdom' on both sides eventually proved wrong over time.
Part of the problem seems to be that each camp must deny the possibility that the other camp has a leg to stand on Whether creation and evolution are the final answer, I don't know. We'll eventually have more answers, but one thing about being an old f%^t, you see a lot of 'accepted wisdom' on both sides eventually proved wrong over time.
I think that there is no purpose to deny the other camp has a leg to stand on, when their premise is as shaky as yours.
31 Dec 2008, 1:19 am
Orwell wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved? 
Because I do not view the universe as a Mobius strip. How did this loop come to be?
have you ever read Hawking's books? His concept of time is quite interesting.
31 Dec 2008, 1:19 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:20 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:20 am
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
adaptation might occur, that does not imply evolution is fact. Speciation might occur, that does not prove evolution as fact. If other people make them so frustrated that they hide evidence, falsify studies, lie about misconceptions, and publish books with errors in them... maybe they need new jobs.
Any hiding of evidence or falsification of studies goes way over the line. I thought you were referring merely to the tendency of biologists to shout down anyone who questioned the theory rather than spend time answering questions.
How are you defining evolution? Adaptation is typically regarded as microevolution and speciation as macroevolution, so I'm not sure what you're still looking for. No, evolution does not have good, solid answers to every single question you might care you ask. It probably never will. It's a complicated subject that's hard to fully understand, and there will always be a degree of uncertainty.
At a basic level, biologists are very threatened by people who question things and challenge ideas. There are some other areas that are as well. I generally define evolution as the idea that spontaneous generation can happen randomly. Whereas creation is the belief that spontaneous generation cannot happen randomly.
Everything else can be mixed and matched to make numerous different theories.
what would you say to someone who told you they believed in creation and evolution at the same time?
evolution as defined by life spontaneously arising from nonlife does not co-mingle with the belief that life was created and cannot spontaneously arise.
You can believe life is created, and aspects of the larger encompassing theory of evolution, but you cannot hold both beliefs on the generation of life.
as far as i know, the theory of evolution does not specifically state that life, when it originally began, began spontaneously...only that it began when a certain level of organisation was reached amongst groups of amino chains/proteins.
and i do believe both. i believe life was created, and will be created, over and over and over again, and always has been created, over and over....and each time it has run it's gamut of development (evolution) only to reach the natural end of that cycle to begin again with creation anew. don't ask me if it happens the same way every time. that one's a corker!
31 Dec 2008, 1:23 am
Orwell wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?
Because I do not view the universe as a Mobius strip. How did this loop come to be?
it didn't come to be. it has always been. that infinity, that perfection of forever....that is why i believe in god....that is what i think god is.
31 Dec 2008, 1:23 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:25 am
Orwell wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?
Because I do not view the universe as a Mobius strip. How did this loop come to be?
btw, i have no idea what a Mobius strip is
.....i have little to no background in physics (yet--i'm working my way around to it ) ....i did physics for tech (read: mostly kinetics) in college on a whim. i did enjoy it though 
31 Dec 2008, 1:28 am
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
you are redefining deity to simply mean not finite?
Quote:
de-sign (di-zin)v. de-signed, de-sign-ing, de-signs.v. tr. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
Quote:
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
the purpose of creating life is to create life? seems rather circular...
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?
I don't see time as linear.
well, if my circular/cyclical theory of time is not valid, but time is not linear either, then of what nature is time? (when i speak of creation, i am speaking of both the creation of life and the creation of the universe, here)
31 Dec 2008, 1:34 am
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
adaptation might occur, that does not imply evolution is fact. Speciation might occur, that does not prove evolution as fact. If other people make them so frustrated that they hide evidence, falsify studies, lie about misconceptions, and publish books with errors in them... maybe they need new jobs.
Any hiding of evidence or falsification of studies goes way over the line. I thought you were referring merely to the tendency of biologists to shout down anyone who questioned the theory rather than spend time answering questions.
How are you defining evolution? Adaptation is typically regarded as microevolution and speciation as macroevolution, so I'm not sure what you're still looking for. No, evolution does not have good, solid answers to every single question you might care you ask. It probably never will. It's a complicated subject that's hard to fully understand, and there will always be a degree of uncertainty.
At a basic level, biologists are very threatened by people who question things and challenge ideas. There are some other areas that are as well. I generally define evolution as the idea that spontaneous generation can happen randomly. Whereas creation is the belief that spontaneous generation cannot happen randomly.
Everything else can be mixed and matched to make numerous different theories.
what would you say to someone who told you they believed in creation and evolution at the same time?
evolution as defined by life spontaneously arising from nonlife does not co-mingle with the belief that life was created and cannot spontaneously arise.
You can believe life is created, and aspects of the larger encompassing theory of evolution, but you cannot hold both beliefs on the generation of life.
as far as i know, the theory of evolution does not specifically state that life, when it originally began, began spontaneously...only that it began when a certain level of organisation was reached amongst groups of amino chains/proteins.
and i do believe both. i believe life was created, and will be created, over and over and over again, and always has been created, over and over....and each time it has run it's gamut of development (evolution) only to reach the natural end of that cycle to begin again with creation anew. don't ask me if it happens the same way every time. that one's a corker!
spontaneous generation meaning life occurred without cause or generation from non-life (meaning the process was random and not done by a creator)
As for the other belief, you believe in theological evolution, which is creationism (origin of life) and evolution (development of life). Since we are only discussing origin of life. for the purposes of the discussion you would be classified as creationist.
31 Dec 2008, 1:35 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:41 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:44 am
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
you are redefining deity to simply mean not finite?
Quote:
de-sign (di-zin)v. de-signed, de-sign-ing, de-signs.v. tr. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
Quote:
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
the purpose of creating life is to create life? seems rather circular...
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?
I don't see time as linear.
well, if my circular/cyclical theory of time is not valid, but time is not linear either, then of what nature is time? (when i speak of creation, i am speaking of both the creation of life and the creation of the universe, here)
read Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell. It has an interesting explanation of time, and as I do not have a copy on me... I cannot summarize it without butchering it.
31 Dec 2008, 1:46 am
31 Dec 2008, 1:48 am
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
you are redefining deity to simply mean not finite?
Quote:
de-sign (di-zin)v. de-signed, de-sign-ing, de-signs.v. tr. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
Quote:
so you are considering only those things that are created for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. Though I am not sure how you would classify something that was created, but not for a purpose or with intent or predetermined. How are you sure that life was not created on a whim, or designed but without a purpose?
you have stated the purpose of creating life right there in your argument. the purpose is to create life. and to create life. the design is the purpose. life was designed to be, and to perpetuate.
the purpose of creating life is to create life? seems rather circular...
why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?
I don't see time as linear.
well, if my circular/cyclical theory of time is not valid, but time is not linear either, then of what nature is time? (when i speak of creation, i am speaking of both the creation of life and the creation of the universe, here)
read Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell. It has an interesting explanation of time, and as I do not have a copy on me... I cannot summarize it without butchering it.
perhaps spiral is a more apt picture than circle? and each end of the spiral stretches out along a curve to come back behind itself again making another spiral....the ends of which stretch out on a curve that is another spiral, etc etc etc......so spiral, not circle. still cyclical, though. still infinite, yes?
31 Dec 2008, 1:51 am
