the universe ... chance? or does it have a creator ?

[devrat]

^^^^Clearly Spike..........the Dinosaurs ate the humans and pooped them out.

[megadoc1]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

[d spike]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

BLASPHEMY!!!!!BURN THE ROTTER AT THE STAKE!!!!

^^^^Clearly Spike..........the Dinosaurs ate the humans and pooped them out.

Somehow, that sums up my feelings on this whole fundamentalists' creationist stuff.

[devrat]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

[megadoc1]

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

What is the meaning of "probability"? The fact that it is probable, no matter how small, means that it CAN happen. The very fact that it has not happened in any test-tube in any lab simply shows HOW SMALL such a probability is... megadoc, that argument is old as Satan's uncle... and about as useful.

When you pick and choose which scientific argument you will use (for it agrees with you) and which ones you will ignore (for it doesn't agree with you) all you end up doing is showing an illogical bias - which isn't scientific - and thus sinks the worth of your chosen arguments.
Here is one such example:
You quoted some talk of fossils to prove the creationists' point... yet one of the very creationists' arguments (as follows):

BTW - I (and mega-doc) have consistently maintained that people and dinosaurs existed at the same time!

creates a predicament, namely, how come there are no human fossils alongside the dinosaur fossils?

I understand what you saying dey..blufeeeeeeteee

anyways anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible

d spike lets hear your imput..and I am not going tru that teapot thing with you eh

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

clearly you are very confused.

Earlier on you yourself admitted that creationism requires faith; belief.

Science does NOT require faith or belief.
You DO NOT need to believe in science for it to work for you.
Science only requires factual data and empirical evidence as proof. Science is a continuous process in fact finding.

[devrat]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

When you close your eyes to pray....what do you picture in your mind?

[megadoc1]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

amm I don't physically picture God,thats kinda like an insult for a finite man
to come up with what he think an infinite being looks like
God even forbids it ......

[d spike]

[megadoc1]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

clearly you are very confused.

Earlier on you yourself admitted that creationism requires faith; belief.
ok

Science does NOT require faith or belief.
but it does require a lot to believe everything happened by chance
You DO NOT need to believe in science for it to work for you.
but when you believe in theories that arent or cannot be proven at this time then we have a problem
Science only requires factual data and empirical evidence as proof. Science is a continuous process in fact finding.
cool

[mamoo_pagal]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

clearly you are very confused.

Earlier on you yourself admitted that creationism requires faith; belief.
ok

Science does NOT require faith or belief.
but it does require a lot to believe everything happened by chance
You DO NOT need to believe in science for it to work for you.
but when you believe in theories that arent or cannot be proven at this time then we have a problem
Science only requires factual data and empirical evidence as proof. Science is a continuous process in fact finding.
cool

can you please identify which theories cannot be proven at this time???
And by admitting that science cannot prove it this time, are you implying that eventually they will prove it?

[rollingstock]

Do the maths nothing from nothing is=.......................

So there was something before?

Question is what we ascribe to god? Is it true? What is God?

[Gladiator]

My personal opinion is that certain people believe in "God" and Creation due to the fact that they look for excuses for the failures/accomplishments/luck/chance/good/bad that is life.

It gives you comfort to believe that there is someone/something out there controlling things around you and because of that some of the pressure of living in this world is reduced. The act of prayers and praying is more psychological than anything else. Dependence on a supernatural being beats doing for yourself.

Conveniently you also have someone to blame for everything bad that happens.

I believe in a mixture of evolution and creation.... we did originate originally as a lesser humanoid apelike creature but something/someone changed this. We were altered to become the beings that we are today. What or who was responsible? Maybe "god" a brilliant scientist residing somewhere else in the Universe with the ability to genetically engineer a human from a lesser life form... Who knows??? Creation, if true wasn't done with a magic wand... but through science, genetic modification and mutation.

[devrat]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

amm I don't physically picture God,thats kinda like an insult for a finite man
to come up with what he think an infinite being looks like
God even forbids it ......

So why do they depict Jesus as a White male in a white robe with long blond hair and a flowing beard ?

[d spike]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ by "genetic modification and mutation" I think you mean evolution?

[MG Man]

oh for figgityfuck sake, another ched on this?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

clearly you are very confused.

Earlier on you yourself admitted that creationism requires faith; belief.
ok

Science does NOT require faith or belief.
but it does require a lot to believe everything happened by chance
You DO NOT need to believe in science for it to work for you.
but when you believe in theories that arent or cannot be proven at this time then we have a problem
Science only requires factual data and empirical evidence as proof. Science is a continuous process in fact finding.
cool

Please quote properly so other users can follow the discussion.

Science does not require you to believe anything!!!
it is not about belief. Something is only proven in science when facts are presented or empirical evidence is discovered. Scientific theories can be dis-proven using the scientific process. ONLY the facts stand up. Science has NOTHING to do with belief!

you seem to be using your concept of "Belief=Truth" to describe Science - they are totally different!

[megadoc1]

megadoc1, believing in something does not make it true

amen!!

clearly you are very confused.

Earlier on you yourself admitted that creationism requires faith; belief.
ok

Science does NOT require faith or belief.
but it does require a lot to believe everything happened by chance
You DO NOT need to believe in science for it to work for you.
but when you believe in theories that arent or cannot be proven at this time then we have a problem
Science only requires factual data and empirical evidence as proof. Science is a continuous process in fact finding.
cool

can you please identify which theories cannot be proven at this time???

Chandra Wickramasinghe Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy

...Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,...The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. ...

Dr. Emile Borel, one of the world's great experts on mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability. It states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in 10 x 50-power - a much smaller figure than what we have been dealing with - is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen - no matter how much time is alloted, no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place. In other words, life by chance is mathematically impossible on earth or any place else

And by admitting that science cannot prove it this time, are you implying that eventually they will prove it?

possible, just as the creationist may be able to prove there is a God, or even you may find out yourself

[d spike]

anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible
Sooo... are you saying the guy you quoted was WRONG? ...MISTAKEN?

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

d spike lets hear your imput
I've given my opinion on this to you oft times before... Why should I repeat that which you don't respect?

..and I am not going tru that teapot thing with you eh
Why not? It is a perfectly rational argument, that puts all this in its proper perspective.

[Russellgold]

if all is science...what will happen 2 a person when they die...?

[megadoc1]

look up d spike

[~Vēġó~]

science channel within very recent days has been showing some very intriguing programmes wrt the beginning of the universe.......from an almost miniscule super dense particle to expansion in extremely small fractions of a second (as in planck time).....

reminds me of a mantra that literally translates "from nothing was born everything"......

[d spike]

oh for figgityfuck sake, another ched on this?

What else is he to write about in a forum for car enthusiasts? He clearly isn't into cars, so at least he posts about what he is enthusiastic about... it could be worse... he could start posting disconnected phrases of praise, or talk about his misadventures with a possessed sex-toy - both of which he has done before.
You really want him to start that all over again? Complete with rebuking and condemning and calling folk 'liars'? Eh? Look here...

Yes, megadoc...

look up d spike

I see the chandelier... what about it?

[megadoc1]

if all is science...what will happen 2 a person when they die...?

if its science they just rot......................
it will be wrong to asked science to answer this question,if you are implying that your soul needs to go somewhere after death.
a lot of people make the mistake by giving science the authority to speak where it cannot
especially in the realms of the supernatural

[mamoo_pagal]

if all is science...what will happen 2 a person when they die...?

if its science they just rot......................
it will be wrong to asked science to answer this question,if you are implying that your soul needs to go somewhere after death.
a lot of people make the mistake by giving science the authority to speak where it cannot
especially in the realms of the supernatural

who gives the authority to talk about the supernatural??

[nareshseep]

aliens i tell you aliens,,,,,,,,

x2

[sMASH]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

amm I don't physically picture God,thats kinda like an insult for a finite man
to come up with what he think an infinite being looks like
God even forbids it ......

,,, well, according to your bible, god did it. he personified himself, or is jesus not god, so something separate?

anyways anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible

d spike lets hear your imput..and I am not going tru that teapot thing with you eh

think about this, how many galaxies are there? then how many star systems are there, then how many stars, planets, planetoids, asteroids etc? then how many atoms are there? then how many subatomic particles are there?
did we cross 10^50 yet?

if not, then 10^50 one christ

i mean 10^50 +1, there, we've passed it.

[megadoc1]

Science does not require you to believe anything!!!
it is not about belief. Something is only proven in science when facts are presented or empirical evidence is discovered. Scientific theories can be dis-proven using the scientific process. ONLY the facts stand up. Science has NOTHING to do with belief!

you seem to be using your concept of "Belief=Truth" to describe Science - they are totally different!

I agree with you there but thats just talk look at the walk

Much has been written and spoken by evolutionists to the effect that evolution is happening today but so slowly that we cannot observe it. What is the difference between that idea and this: the reason we cannot observe evolution happening today is that it's not taking place. Is one conclusion more valid than the other? The second idea is the simplest solution that fits the data. The only reason a person would choose the first idea is that he already has a belief (faith) that evolution is happening. Is this scientific??
Evolutionist writers and speakers have also used the small variations within types of plants/animals (sometimes called "microevolution") as proof of evolution. However, "Microevolution (small changes or variations) involves small scale biological changes only (e.g., color, size). Microevolution does not produce new genetic information; it only reshuffles existing genes. The gene pool remains constant." (Paul Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book [Eden Communications, 1995], p. 84.) Evolution (or "macroevolution") is about one plant/animal changing into another plant/animal and microevolution simply cannot be used in any way to explain or prove it, as Darrel Kautz has clearly stated:

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale change accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms... This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human being remain human beings." (Darrel Kautz, The Origin of Living Things [10025 W. Nash St., Milaukee, Wisconsin 53222, 1988], p. 6.)

When one reads the writings of evolutionist writers as well as high school and college biology texts, etc., you continuously read words (describing the process of evolution) like "we think that", "scientists believe", "may be", "could be", "might have been", etc. Although the language of science (at the hypothesis level) should certainly contain words like these, they seem strangely out of place in a discussion coming from the point of view that evolution is a proven fact accepted by all knowledgeable scientists...

[mamoo_pagal]

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2788

Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe - the man who asserted: "Life did not start here on earth but in space,"

come on mega, u can't source pieces of a persons contribution to justify your reasons

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini ... nown09.php

do you believe in all his contributions or just part of it?