Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm
- Thread starter Deliguy
- Start date
- Status
I guess you'd say it was pretty uniform. But since rapid expansion caused it to cool then particles were able to clump together.
If you're genuinely interested in the topic you can't go wrong with some Stephen Hawking material.
If you're genuinely interested in the topic you can't go wrong with some Stephen Hawking material.
Well to try to be as brief as possible - the first atoms that formed were the very simple ones - hydrogen and helium. Those two are enough to form the very first stars and galaxies, with the help of the force of gravity. Then it's not until the first generations of stars die that further generations of stars and planets can form, ultimately leading to one particular galaxy which would contain one particular planet that would have the proper conditions for carbon-based life to begin.
Thats all. What about spontaneous generation - I'm interested in that magic process.
The life from non life part.
The life from non life part.
You're not actually interested in the science. You just want me to say a bunch of stuff so you can dismiss it all as mumbo jumbo.
There's no problem with knowing more about certain areas of science than others. It shouldn't be surprising that things we can put directly under a microscope are more well understood than a process that happened billions of years ago. That doesn't mean that there's no possible natural explanation. To write off anything we have difficulty understanding as "magical" is foolish.
There's no clear cut definition to what exactly the border between living and non-living is. What would you call a single cell that can replicate? Maybe you'd call it living, but certainly not the way that we experience life. It has no brain or nervous system.
I gotta ask, do you think the whole concept of common ancestry is all horse shit? Cause if you do there's not much point in this continuing. Science is a gigantic tapestry with all different fields interweaving to form a big picture of reality. Evolution ties in just as much as planetary motion, or gravity, or cell theory, or atomic theory...
There's loads of quality information out there if you really are interested. If you like to take straw man cheap shots prior to investigation then feel free I guess.
There's no problem with knowing more about certain areas of science than others. It shouldn't be surprising that things we can put directly under a microscope are more well understood than a process that happened billions of years ago. That doesn't mean that there's no possible natural explanation. To write off anything we have difficulty understanding as "magical" is foolish.
There's no clear cut definition to what exactly the border between living and non-living is. What would you call a single cell that can replicate? Maybe you'd call it living, but certainly not the way that we experience life. It has no brain or nervous system.
I gotta ask, do you think the whole concept of common ancestry is all horse shit? Cause if you do there's not much point in this continuing. Science is a gigantic tapestry with all different fields interweaving to form a big picture of reality. Evolution ties in just as much as planetary motion, or gravity, or cell theory, or atomic theory...
There's loads of quality information out there if you really are interested. If you like to take straw man cheap shots prior to investigation then feel free I guess.
Dont stick science into every dirty little hole. Its a simple critical question.
Later Gablablah
Later Gablablah
It's actually common knowledge in Christianity. I'm not one to throw wikipedia entries or other sources you can discredit (you an always google it) but its fairly factual and not a theory. All the new age bibles now just say the number 666 but if you find an older bible(borrow your grandpas) most will either list the formula instead or have a reference to the appendex in its place or simply just say something like "The lord gave me a number. That number was the name of the beast." I understand though with all the hype behind it why people think the number 666 isn't so new. I'm also sure thats why people are so up in arms these days about the number as a representation of the antichrist where no other time in history has the # had the stigma, even the more religiously oppressed historical times. Yep its crazy to think about but the # 666 is new not old.
I still call bullshit.
You stated "There was a formula that could only be calculated using modern computers and ..lo and behold?.. it was the number 666"
Bullshit, modern myth, conspiracies... where is my tin foil helmet?
As you stated this, please provide the book in the bible and the "oh so he never could have known!" formula.
Thnkxbye.
::emp::
PS: I know you are not a nutjob, but this kind of circular reasoning drives me up the wall. As a scientist, I demand proof, not "it is common knowledge that."... If I would go for that, I would live in a catholic priesthood.
Great response.
Perfect example of a creationist turning the blind eye towards a logical, irrefutable explanation.
Far as 666 goes, there was an error in tranlation and the mark of the beast is actually 616
'666' Revelation Might Bedevil Metalheads - News Story | Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV News
I dunno, I would think if the 'beast' were a computer, the mark would be broken down into binary subsets or something
Besides I didn't know of any formula, just simple translations of the number from ancient greek/latin translations themselves.
Ergo why I even remembered it lol. (Hell, Michigan is also in the 616 area code... mere coincidence?)
'666' Revelation Might Bedevil Metalheads - News Story | Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV News
I dunno, I would think if the 'beast' were a computer, the mark would be broken down into binary subsets or something
Besides I didn't know of any formula, just simple translations of the number from ancient greek/latin translations themselves. Ergo why I even remembered it lol. (Hell, Michigan is also in the 616 area code... mere coincidence?)
It's actually common knowledge in Christianity. I'm not one to throw wikipedia entries or other sources you can discredit (you an always google it) but its fairly factual and not a theory. All the new age bibles now just say the number 666 but if you find an older bible(borrow your grandpas) most will either list the formula instead or have a reference to the appendex in its place or simply just say something like "The lord gave me a number. That number was the name of the beast." I understand though with all the hype behind it why people think the number 666 isn't so new. I'm also sure thats why people are so up in arms these days about the number as a representation of the antichrist where no other time in history has the # had the stigma, even the more religiously oppressed historical times. Yep its crazy to think about but the # 666 is new not old.
From Ralph the Sacred River: The Number of the Beast: 616?
Revelations 13:18 - King James (ie: they don't change the original text, and still sell it as King James, thats why there is "NEW" King James, and "New" International, yada yada)
And here's 13:18 from a greek bible from 1550 if anyone wants to try to translate it (if it doesn't say a formula and instead directly says a number, kind of debunks your claim):
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 13:18 (Stephanus New Testament)
Facts are observations that don't change, otherwise they were not facts to begin with. Hypotheses and theories are formed from the observation of facts and can change based on new observations.
An apple falling to the ground on Earth is a fact. Gravity is the theory in relation to this. In scientific terms, gravity is not considered a proven fact.
You never answered my question. Not sure how you consider your answer science. How did we get from non life to life. Its kind of important to know the steps and have evidence. I wasn't even done with your theory, just getting started here. If you'd like to see more holes lets continue.
You must be broke. Cause a fool and his money are soon to be parted.
There is no logic explanation for this step; with hard evidence. Dont hang your head and stick with the "well after billions and billions of years" theory Give the complexity of your body and separate body systems and the systems within those systems and then more systems within those systems a little more credit. Last time I checked they need to work together at the same time to have a final product.
Look at how complex a simple flagellum is.
Not only does it need all parts working harmoniously together (like puff and you got a system). But what was the assembling mechanism. Dont say time, cause thats just silly. That tail there is working at very high RPM by the way - dont misplace a part.
You must be broke. Cause a fool and his money are soon to be parted.
There is no logic explanation for this step; with hard evidence. Dont hang your head and stick with the "well after billions and billions of years" theory Give the complexity of your body and separate body systems and the systems within those systems and then more systems within those systems a little more credit. Last time I checked they need to work together at the same time to have a final product.
Look at how complex a simple flagellum is.
Not only does it need all parts working harmoniously together (like puff and you got a system). But what was the assembling mechanism. Dont say time, cause thats just silly. That tail there is working at very high RPM by the way - dont misplace a part.
What you're talking about is "irreducible complexity" and has been debunked for years.
It is to say that a system of parts needs all the parts in place working harmoniously in order to function, or the parts of the system doesn't work at all. Thus something (namely, an intelligent designer) must have placed all of these non-functioning parts together in order to form the functioning system (like the flagellum).
Well it turns out that removing parts of the flagellum does not render the parts non-functional. They do not need to be part of the flagellum to be functional:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU"]YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked[/ame]
Every time science removes a rock and finds no God underneath, you will no doubt look to other as-of-now unexplainable things as proof that there must be a God.
3:25 "Now thats not evidence, thats just an argument" Did you get the disclosure.
Take away freon from a fridge and its a closet(not all that useless after all). Great argument.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc"]YouTube - Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview[/ame]
Take away freon from a fridge and its a closet(not all that useless after all). Great argument.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc"]YouTube - Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview[/ame]
However he did go on to show that the poster child for intelligent design could indeed be broken down into 10 parts out of 50, and still be perfectly functional. So while he didn't debunk that argument completely, he did debunk the claim pertaining to that specific poster child of impossible-for-evolution based on their own definition of complex design.
- Status