Evolution or Creationism?

No, I think Religion is trying to find something, and use a means of a supernatural being to give a reason they exist. Science is trying to explain why everything happened using the rules in the universe, not looking outside of it. They do this through predictions and observations.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Yes. Whatever existed in the milliseconds after the big bang, it wasn't anything like our current elements.   Quoted from http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html   "It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis."   This is very basic "big bang" stuff. It takes me aback that anyone dares to comment on it without some elementary study of what the theory proclaims.   While that's not a bad site, it doesn't adequately deal with the question of the 'energy' present in the early period after the bang.   The trouble is explainded in the following quote from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/inflation.html   "... it would be tempting to extrapolate further backwards and assume the big bang model to be an accurate description of the universe all the way back to the big bang. Such a complete extrapolation of the theory is not possible, however, because of certain limitations of our theories of high energy physics. When we talk about extrapolating backwards in the big bang model we are referring to running the equations of general relativity backwards to earlier times and higher densities. We know, however, that general relativity ceases to be valid when we try to describe a region of spacetime whose density exceeds a certain value known as the Planck density, roughly 1093 g/cm3. If we try to consistently apply quantum mechanics and general relativity at such a density we find that quantum fluctuations of spacetime become important, and we have no theory that describes such a situation."   Inside the Planck limit (which is still a long way from the actual singularity) the whole concept of mass/energy becomes ill-defined.   It is therefore probably incorrect puristically to say photons existed at the moment of the big bang. They too were formed by it.

Why would a high density of energy change the way the universe works? It's like saying you have a 100KG wombat and because that wieght is abnormal you must redefine a kilogram to mean a rubber ducky.
 

Originally posted by gcle2003 Why?   That seems to me like saying that because there is an infinite number of integers they must all occur multiple times.

 
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion in fact what I said is that if there is a finite amount in existence then there is only a finite amount of combinations (or integars). Assuming this amount can niether increase nor decrease then there would be infinite time and all combinations would eventually occur multiple times.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Suppose there were only ten combinations and each lasted only a year. Time could still be infinite, but 'everything that exists' only last ten years. The rest of the time nothing would exist.

Firstly I would like to ask you about what a year is...just think about it for a moment. Secondly what meaning does time have when everything ceases to exist? what changes?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Actually you beg the question here, by saying 'time is only the chronology of reactions between things'. If that's true then what you say is true. But it isn't necessarily so. I can reverse the argument: if time is infinite then time is not just the record of reactions between things. (I agree that is also begging the question: I only advance it to illustrate.)

 
I could not have begged the question as there was no question, only a matter of fact statement. I can see that this whole argument hinges on the definition of time, so I will provide the definition of time.

Originally posted by Dictionary the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

As you can see Time is the sequential relations that any event has to any other. So as if there is nothing in existence, there are no events and if there are no events there are no relations between them In short time cannot continue if the universe was to end.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Furthermore if matter/energy is both destroyable and creatable then your first argument falls over. I would certainly accept that if there are 'things' around forever, and 'things' can be destroyed, then they must also be creatable. Destruction and creation go hand in hand.

 
No my argument remains valid because if matter can both be created and destroyed it may merely increase the time that passes before all ceases to exist. for example possums can both reproduce and die is this any reason for us to believe the species will never go extinct, anything that can go extinct will.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Then the universe itself can be such a being. Anyway 'matter by its very nature is within the confines of Scientific Law' doesn't make sense. Scientific laws are what we invent to try and explain what goes on around us. They are not laws that matter - or anything else - is subject to. No-one promulgates them. No-one enforces them. They simply are not 'laws' in that sense.

I know what a scientific law is, what i meant was that Matter is well matter and by its very nature has certain attributes and limitations (this is the case with all else in the universe) one of these limitations bieng the ability to create itself. God however is, you guessed it God and by his/her/its very nature is omnipotent and hence does not have any limitations.

Originally posted by gcle2003 It makes them feel pointless and threatened? They would begin to think the universe doesn't care for or even about them? Much safer to believe that somebody runs things and that somebody cares: much safer to be a child with a parent rather than a child on your own in the world.

Originally posted by Cezar People (not all people) are afraid to accept that their life is irrelevant, that's a fact. Different causes for this, too. The purpose of this fear? Well, does it really has to have a purpose? They're just afraid and seek refuge in illusions. Some get religious, some get monomanics, some get suicidal, some get nowhere, etc. The fear has effects, yet it has no purpose. It is only used for different purposes by those who want to control the people. If only people would realize that they're relevant only to other people, not to some kind of divine entity. There is nothing equal in arrogance to the statements of the OT regarding the reasons God had to create humans.

Why would people be afraid of thier life having no meaning( I agree people are, just making a point)? Yes the fear has to have a purpose if your an evolutionist you would need a reason for this fear to develop, chickens and cows don't kill themselves because they believe they have no purpose, yet people do. fear of hieghts exists to prevent injuries sustained by falling, fear of pain to avoid damage etc. What purpose exactly does the fear of a lack of purpose serve? why are we not content to breed as much as possible then die like so many other organisms? Furtheremore why do we all even possess this concept of purpose?

Regards, Praetor.



Edited by Praetor - 08-Apr-2007 at 04:22

Christ is risen.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I don't actually agree with Omar that the purpose of religion has in fact been to seek the 'good' or define the 'good man'. The purpose of religion in general (and most religions are essentially unconcerned with what is good) is to explain the world and to learn how to control - or at least influence - it[1].

Straw Man. Yes, I will say it again. However, this time I'll point out a few small problems with it. The first problem is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Christianity doesn't teach you anything about manipulating the forces of the world. Islam doesn't allow you to levitate or use mind control on marsupials. Contrary to popular belief, Rabbis cannot read your mind. Buddhism basically says don't do anything. The exception, of course, is that we all know that nuns have powers

The second problem is that you persist in having no idea what you're talking about. You see, religion is certainly very much involved in defining what a 'good man' should do. In fact, it seems to make up the majority of most religious texts. I can produce a million and one quotes from the bible alone that'll be concerned with what a 'good man' should do, and I challenge you to find one passage from the bible that tutors someone in the ways of mind control, psychokinesis, or whatever other crazy ideas you believe in.
 

Originally posted by fogger As what i've said, religion said god made the earth rather than the big bang

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The one does not exclude the other. In fact, don't go hedging your bets on the big bang either it's still just a theory that evidence appears to point to.

Indeed, religion does not exclude the big bang. In fact the big bang seems to support creation more than anything else. There is, however, little evidence supporting it.

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim See what I mean fogger. Guys sit around and discuss this stuff even though they have no idea what the physics of the situation actually is. Yes Praetor, you are exactly right. A high density of energy would change the "way the universe"* works. *Actually it won't change it at all. The universe always worked that way we just didn't know it, and can't percieve it.

Paraphrasing:
"Yes children, when lots of energy sits together the laws of physics are completely different. We know this because we've never seen it before, and it has no logical explanation. However, it is undeniable fact... ignore my previous admission that I don't understand what I'm talking about."

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim Don't play games Praetor. I'm sure you know that 'a year' was an arbitatry unit of time.

You completely ignored the second part of that quote. Perhaps you can't answer it.

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim Time is a dimension. The dictionary is incorrect in a discussion about physics.

Let us, for the sake of physics, define drivel as whatever you just said. You can't disregard the dictionary because it suits you.

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim The critical failing in many peoples thoughts on these issues is to assume that science and religion are competing in the same field, and that they preach different things. With the exceptions of a few bible passages interpreted literally this is entirely incorrect. There is no science vs religion, perhaps science vs some christian sects, but don't include the whole of religion.

While I agree that science and religion are not exclusive, your attempts at facing off your rivals in Christianity against your rivals in Atheism. Very nice style, however you failed to address that there are many passages in the Koran, intepretted literally, that are also in contradiction to 'science'. The nature of divinity itself is in contradiction to scientific method. I'm afraid you got called out on your little maneuvre, not that it means a little much. Just don't think you're so clever.

Edited by Zaitsev - 08-Apr-2007 at 08:37

He is risen indeed.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I don't actually agree with Omar that the purpose of religion has in fact been to seek the 'good' or define the 'good man'. The purpose of religion in general (and most religions are essentially unconcerned with what is good) is to explain the world and to learn how to control - or at least influence - it[1].

I went to church this morning, and oddly enough we were dealing with the concept of the ressurection and salvation. This seems a bit strange, because as we all know - I spend most of the year training with the youth group in the ways of the force. I suspect Omar has fallen to the dark side. I now understand why religious people scare you so much, because as we all know, Tony Blaire is actually being psychically controlled by a crack team of infiltration nuns. I myself am the commander of a squadron of undead Templar Knights. At night we wage secret underground wars against Hindu zombie elephants, and pink unicorns from the depths of hades. End Sarcasm.

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim Many religions do try to provide meaning to why we exist I admit. Although in my religion no attempt to provide a meaning to life is attempted, the focus being on what you should do now that you've got one.

You seem to be confusing two fundamentally different concepts Omar. One is how we came to be, and the other is why. What you should do with your life is "why".

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim See what I mean fogger. Guys sit around and discuss this stuff even though they have no idea what the physics of the situation actually is. Yes Praetor, you are exactly right. A high density of energy would change the "way the universe"* works. *Actually it won't change it at all. The universe always worked that way we just didn't know it, and can't percieve it.

As Zaitsev has pointed out, you are hardly in a position to criticise, having yourself admitted you do not understand the subject. Furthermore, you never even attempted to disprove my logic. Finally I would like to highlight your use of the phrase "can't percieve it". If that was the case, how was this outlandish theory developed?

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim Don't play games Praetor. I'm sure you know that 'a year' was an arbitatry unit of time.

all units of time are measured either by an event, such as the rotation of the earth (a day) or a division of this such as an hour (1 24th of a day, approximately). so without any events you would not have any units of time at all.

Originally posted by Omar Al Hashim Time is a dimension. The dictionary is incorrect in a discussion about physics.

we cannot redefine language for our own convenience. furtheremore this is the definition of a dimension in regards to Phsyics:

Originally posted by Dictionary A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

doesn't sound too bad until you take a look at the relevent definition for Physical in regards to science:

Originally posted by Dictionary  Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Now if there was no matter and energy there are no dimensions and hence no time.

ps. gcle2003 I have not forgotten your post and I will respond to it shortly.

Regards, Praetor.

Originally posted by Praetor He is risen indeed. Originally posted by gcle2003 I don't actually agree with Omar that the purpose of religion has in fact been to seek the 'good' or define the 'good man'. The purpose of religion in general (and most religions are essentially unconcerned with what is good) is to explain the world and to learn how to control - or at least influence - it[1]. I went to church this morning, and oddly enough we were dealing with the concept of the ressurection and salvation. This seems a bit strange, because as we all know - I spend most of the year training with the youth group in the ways of the force. I suspect Omar has fallen to the dark side. I now understand why religious people scare you so much, because as we all know, Tony Blaire is actually being psychically controlled by a crack team of infiltration nuns. I myself am the commander of a squadron of undead Templar Knights. At night we wage secret underground wars against Hindu zombie elephants, and pink unicorns from the depths of hades. End Sarcasm.

Just checking to make sure the body count doesn't exceed the amount prescribed in the coc. Gentleman lets keep it civil.  The dead and wounded shall not at anytime exceed 3 feet in depth.

Yes its hinting something. Also a lot of schools in america. Starting in the 1960s, kids stoped praying in schools, the word God ceased to be mentioned, and evolution has been taught as fact. Also, starting about ten to twenty years after that, america starts becoming corrupted. Ideas like post modernism start to form, crime increases, and people stop caring about the future, only today. People kill for fun (not mental problems, fun), kids think that walking around school in a trench coat, combat boots, lots of body peircings, and sometimes even carrying a gun with you (columbine for instance) is cool. Truth is now relative. Movies dont have good guys or bad guys anymore, no black and white, everything is now grey. Divorce rates have increased to numbers that would have been simply unbeleivable to people 50 years ago. Abortion has become something that DOCTORS do! Doctors are supposed to save life, I thought. And its not even the very major things like that. These days, you wont find the nice, TV comercial people anymore. People dont smile anymore, just to smile. People arent polite for politeness sake. People dont obey unspoken rules because they are supposed to anymore. Now the only things people do are out of self intrest. Now people do what they know is WRONG and feel no guilt. People are now looking for ways to stop the resolution of conflicts, because it might "hurt someones feelings" It wasnt this way 50 years ago. So yes, I see something being hinted at. People who see themselves as dirt are easier to control. You can make them beleive anything. And if you want my opinion, evolution is the greatest blight on humankind, other than sin itself. And evolution is going to go away eventually, becaue of the Scientific Cycle.

As for yur first paragraph, I would like to point out something: It was not just theists that tortured in inhumane ways. Everybody tortured, there was no democracy back then. Poeple were tortured because of religion, anf by religion, I will admit that. Did I say the church was immune to corruption because they were (arguably) christian? Everybod corrupts, particularly people and things in power, so there are no exceptions. Indeed, religion can be a great tool to people looking for power. But only religions that say in their holy text (or teachings if there is no holy text) to kill people, to torture, or to commit horrible acts can be critisized for such things, otherwise one must critisize the church or orginization that commited them.

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco As for yur first paragraph, I would like to point out something: It was not just theists that tortured in inhumane ways. Everybody tortured, there was no democracy back then.