Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Fight takes place on Korriban.

Question: were you serious when you called everyone here stupid?

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Question: were you serious when you called everyone here stupid? I didn't call everyone. i called the people that think sidious is the most powerful sith ever. I mean thats just plain ignorant .

Haaaaaaaaa!

yet it was you that made this thread, right? Like, we aren't making that part up are we? Like, i really want to be sure it was YOU that made this thread while calling OTHER people stupid before I mock you for it.

Everyone who puts Revan in a versus-thread title is stupid.

Sidious - and I agree w/ Slash; using Revan in a vs thread is somewhat pointless. And the manner in which a certain troll uses him is... well... disturbing.

guys: revan book, we have to stop the fake wankery, people won't understand.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
I didn't call everyone. i called the people that think sidious is the most powerful sith ever. I mean thats just plain ignorant .

Hmm, so you call stupid only people who disagree with you.
Bravo.






EDIT: On topic: The team wins in a ridiculous epic OMG stomp.

Revan solos. 'Cuz he ruled the Sith Empire during Nihilus's existence, and Nihilus can destroy the Force with his mere presence. So if Revan has the power to keep Nihilus in check, I submit to you that he can, too, destroy life/the universe/the Force with his mere presence plus moar.

You reek of bitterness.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You reek of bitterness.

Absolutely.

I'm bitter that my time was wasted and victory was achieved so easily.

Whatever you say hon. Now be a good boy and work on that reply.*


*Don't work on a reply. I have a creative writing assignment to work on and a presentation to create.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Whatever you say hon. Now be a good boy and work on that reply.*


*Don't work on a reply. I have a creative writing assignment to work on and a presentation to create.

I, too, have a creative writing assignment: Two short stories and a one-act play. Remind me in a week or two.

Originally posted by axel_jovan
Hmm, so you call stupid only people who disagree with you.
Bravo.






EDIT: On topic: The team wins in a ridiculous epic OMG stomp. No. I don't call people stupid who have a different opinion then me. I call people who are of a certain opinion, an opinion that is not true, stupid.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
No. I don't call people stupid who have a different opinion then me. I call people who are of a certain opinion, an opinion that is not true, stupid.

Hard to disprove an opinion bub.

I actually lol'd at an opinion that is not true.

Opinions can be wrong. Its' many people opinions that God exists, and that might be wrong. I believe aliens exist, but I might be wrong. A millenia ago popular opinion was that the world was flat and women were lesser beings. They were wrong.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Hard to disprove an opinion bub. Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I actually lol'd at an opinion that is not true. Except sometimes an opinion is wrong and sometimes its not an opinion.

i can say I am of the opinion that a single battle droid>>>>>darth revan. It would be wrong would it not?

"The opinions of a God become the facts that the mortal races are compelled to follow."

An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.

Originally posted by Pwned
An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.

http://i56.tinypic.com/5juyrt.jpg

Seems more rational than religious people or atheists.

David Hume showed us all why no one is a true sceptic.

That being said, some answers are more likely than others.

One thing that can at the very least be proven is that there was such a thing as a "beginning" that randomly came into being.

Originally posted by Iden Enserath
One thing that can at the very least be proven is that there was such a thing as a "beginning" that randomly came into being.

I'm not so sure about this. The concept that time has a beginning seems odd considering everything else in natural is observed in cycles.

Well the simple fact that time has, at any given time, a present, would prove that it also has a beginning, otherwise there would be an infinite span of time that proceeds any given present point in time, whereby the present point in time would never be able to be fully realised.

Though I must say it's a concept I have a hard time wrapping my head around, but it would seem that time can be proven to possess a beginning, within the confines of potentially imperfect human reasoning.

What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.

There are many theoretical physics theory that debate whether the "big bang" was the creation of all universes or just ours, or the creation of our particular dimension of universe, etc. Chaotic Inflation is a mind blowing concept.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.

In the sense that a "beginning" can be proven, there would have been no causal means in existence by which it would have been able to have come about.

Well this thread got off track fast.

And can we not discuss the concept of time as though its something we understand? I mean even Hawking and Einstein don't understand it. What shot does anyone here have?

The extent to which we understand the concept is sufficient in arriving at that definitive conclusion.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
What an absolute load of bull. You are not, in any way, shape, or form, able to prove that our beginning was a "random" occurance.
I do not believe that word means what he thinks it means.

Originally posted by Pwned
An opinion that is wrong does not make you stupid. It makes you stupid when it is consitently proven false, and when more than the people who said it was wrong, and attempted to prove it, try to prove to you that it is wrong.
Ill provide the example of Christians and Atheists.
They (atheists) call Christians ignorant because they believe in God and Jesus, and everything else they believe. Well, Christians think Atheists are ignorant because they DONT believe in God, despite all the things that "prove" His existance. Well, atheists cite the Big Bang and all that, yada yada. Christians cite Gods omnipotence, and o,niscience (sp?)

Now tell me which group is wrong, just from that, and tell me if they are stupid.

That example was the first that came to mind. I had others but I REALLY didnt want to start political shit, thats tends to rage longer than religious (unless your an extremist)
While its true, most Christians are ignorant of how the Bible came to be, so Atheists are ignorant of something they cant see, they are insecure in that they cant stand to think they are accountable to something higher. Both groups are faulted, and both groups can improve.
You've been really lucky in your religious arguments; my experience is the exact opposite. (At least, people are willing to argue more desperately longer for religious topics than for political.)
Also, I liked the way that you managed to pidgeonhole Christians as ignorant (Ever hear of Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, or C.S. Lewis, Apologist Extraordinaire?)

Meanwhile, atheism is not even a worldview, so there's not really any traction to be had for generalizing.

Originally posted by Iden Enserath
In the sense that a "beginning" can be proven, there would have been no causal means in existence by which it would have been able to have come about.

I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!! How did god begin?

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!
That's nice. The stereotypical (undergraduate) philosophy student answer is that you cannot jump from "a first cause exists" to "that first cause is the Christian God."

It's nice that you've investigated your faith, though.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
I see what you are saying there. However, with that being said, there cannot be a beginning in the truest sense then, since no beginning can come about on its own. Therefore, there must be an absolute first cause who has always existed. And this first cause is GOD!!

The First Cause argument eh? Never bought it. Why does God not need an origin but the Big Bang does?

Originally posted by Black bolt z
How did god begin?

If we define God as an omniscient, omnipresent being who is both everything and nothing, he didn't need a beginning. God just was, is, and always will be.. That's if you subscribe to that notion of God.

that's the difference. no one is claiming a bigbang is omnipresent, so it needs an origin.

Originally posted by Pwned
Where I live in this random city in Missouri, pretty much every single person is either Christian or Atheist, so I generalized it by that/

The way most Christians are ignorant is that they dont even know the origin of the Bible. Same with most Americans (sadly) and their own countries history. Its staggering.




If you look at what scientists say (I think it was several) All life is one big random coincidence, because if anything was changed, we would not be alive. That kind of points to there being something causing it, to me at least.

One can argue that most Atheists are ignorant as they're prone to spout Philosophy 101 arguments instead of logical rebuttals.

i buy that. I mean everything else degrades over time, why would the universe get more complex?

Side note: Anyone else as excited as **** over thor?

Originally posted by truejedi
that's the difference. no one is claiming a bigbang is omnipresent, so it needs an origin.

Why does it? God apparently doesn't. Simply because the big bang isn't omniprsenet doesn't mean it didn't exist before, well, anything.

Yes to Thor. Going to be freaking EPIC.



And yeah, Atheists get annoying when theres a Christian around, and they havent known them for years (here at least)

Several of my friends are Atheists, several are Christians, if they werent great friends for like, 6 years, they would hate each other. Its kind of sickening to see what it comes to over one thing, especially something where peace and love are preached more often than not.

Because if you are going to use science, USE it. Obviously something didn't just appear out of nothing in a scientific explanation, it had to come from SOMEWHERE in the first place.

At least Christianity admits that they need to use the supernatural to explain it.

Why use science at all, if your answer at the end has to be "we don't know where it came from, it's always been here."

Originally posted by truejedi
Because if you are going to use science, USE it. Obviously something didn't just appear out of nothing in a scientific explanation, it had to come from SOMEWHERE in the first place.

At least Christianity admits that they need to use the supernatural to explain it.

Why use science at all, if your answer at the end has to be "we don't know where it came from, it's always been here."

Both quantum and theoretical physics allow for the infinite to exist.

despite the fact that that spits in the face of common sense?

Originally posted by truejedi
despite the fact that that spits in the face of common sense?

1. It doesn't really.
2. Common sense is (can't believe I'm saying this) relative. Most people are stupid so common sense doesn't exist to them.
3. Things such as M/String Theory allow for the infinite to exist.

I believe Shelden has been trying to prove String Theory for years without success, amirite?

(kidding, kidding)

that aside: Does it allow matter to exist infinitly?

Originally posted by truejedi
I believe Shelden has been trying to prove String Theory for years without success, amirite?

(kidding, kidding)

that aside: Does it allow matter to exist infinitly?

Absolutely.

That doesn't strike you as an attempt to rationalize an unknown without evidence?

it is definitly what it strikes me as.

Originally posted by truejedi
That doesn't strike you as an attempt to rationalize an unknown without evidence?

it is definitly what it strikes me as.

Nope, because they have evidence. I'm just not well versed enough to elaborate on it.. I'm reading the second book by Dr. Kaku.

Originally posted by truejedi
Because if you are going to use science, USE it. Obviously something didn't just appear out of nothing in a scientific explanation, it had to come from SOMEWHERE in the first place.

At least Christianity admits that they need to use the supernatural to explain it.

So because Christianity (or almost any deific religion) more fully explains, in your opinion, the origin of the Universe it is correct?

In all honesty I hardly notice why it explains less. One requires a god to have existed forever, the other the primeval atom (not in all models however).



Christianity does the same thing however.

Originally posted by truejedi
that's the difference. no one is claiming a bigbang is omnipresent, so it needs an origin. Technically isn't the big bang omnipresent because it did go everywhere?

ares: Right, but christianity doesn't claim to have all the answers. Science should be much like math: I should be able to work backwards through the proof and see all the steps connect. Its why it replaces the need for faith. At least Christianity admits that need.

Sometimes Science DOES rationalize just to discredit religion. However, what's the difference between an infinite atom and God? Two different explanations for the same events.

well, the only problem i have is when those who have faith in science look down on those who have faith in a divine being like they are less intelligent or foolish. I think it is just human nature to try to feel superior over others.

Originally posted by ares834
Why does it? God apparently doesn't. Simply because the big bang isn't omniprsenet doesn't mean it didn't exist before, well, anything.


God, by the purest definition, does not require a beginning. The 'big bang' however certainly does.

If the big bang was what immediately evolved onto what we see now, what caused the big bang? God!!

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Technically isn't the big bang omnipresent because it did go everywhere?

No, not when dealing with the field of quantum mechanics/physics - the big bang is isolated from extra-dimensional space.

1.Everything that has a beginning needs a cause.
2.The universe had a beginning.
3.The universe needs a cause.
4.There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes.
5.There must be a cause for all else which has no beginning and needs no cause for its own existence

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Sometimes Science DOES rationalize just to discredit religion. However, what's the difference between an infinite atom and God? Two different explanations for the same events.



My thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
God, by the purest definition, does not require a beginning. The 'big bang' however certainly does.

Why? After all the primordial atom does not require a beginning either.

Why? After all the primordial atom does not require a beginning either.

Sure it does... where did it come from?

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Sure it does... where did it come from?

I can ask the same question for you. Where did God come from?

BTW, the Primordial Atom, by the purest definition, does not require a beginning.

ares, are you completely ignoring my posts? because you keep asking the same questions.

Originally posted by truejedi
ares, are you completely ignoring my posts? because you keep asking the same questions.

No, I agree with you. However, Jinsoku Takai holds that it is impossible for the primoridal atom to exist but not God. And I'm wondering why he believes that.

Originally posted by ares834
No, I agree with you. However, Jinsoku Takai holds that it is impossible for the primoridal atom to exist but not God. And I'm wondering why he believes that.

Read above.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
If the universe needs a cause for its existence, and there cannot be an unending string of contingent causes, there must be a Cause whose existence is necessary.

Something must be eternal for anything else to exist. For nothing produces nothing. If nothing ever existed, then nothing could exist. But the universe, as you have seen, is not eternal; it began to exist. So, there must be something else, or someone else, who does not depend upon any other for existence, but exists by virtue of itself.

I will agree with this for the sake of the discussion.



Why must it be a "being"?

I'd like to step in here and note that, in the most elaborately explained model of quantum physics to which I've been exposed, the universe has been mathematically shown to have zero energy. For every iota of energy generated during the big bang, an equal and opposite amount of !energy was also created. That is to say, when viewed at the universal level, the Big Bang did not actually generate any energy. We just happen to be in a local pocket of less than zero entropy, which is averaged by a place of more than zero entropy. (I'm explaining this very poorly, mostly because I don't trust myself with the formal definitions of these terms and the math is well above my head.)

Much like particles sometimes erupt spontaneously into existence at the quantum level (paired with their antiparticle) without any violation of conservation of energy, the Big Bang was just a macro-scale eruption of quantum-scale effects that ultimately sum to zero.










Is any of this getting through?
My personal favorite argument, based in (again, poorly understood) deep mathematics, is that the Big Bang was the beginning of causality. The singularity that expanded during that event literally contained all of time and space. Time literally had not yet started. If time was not passing, and in fact causality itself was on hiatus, then it is fair to say that the Big Bang had an eternity to happen. No matter how unlikely it was, it had all the "time" in the universe. Literally.
IANAPhysicist

Originally posted by ares834
I will agree with this for the sake of the discussion.



Why must it be a "being"?

Because matter (atoms, quantum particles, etc...), lacking intelligence, cannot create itself.

As noted, this is not physically true. Metaphysics is all well and good, but you are talking about empirically detectable questions. Observations at the LHC as well as the mathematics of quantum physics have shown that the existence of matter is a more stable situation than is non-existence. The appearance of matter is a spontaneous phenomenon based on the workings of the universe.

so where did the universe come from?

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
True to some extent. Time is by all means, a product of the big bang. God is not confined to our understanding of time, any more than we are confined to a piece of paper that we sketch on.
That's a very pretty piece of rhetoric. However, when actually working with the mechanics of the universe, sounding wise and being productive are not usually compatible goals. Be specific: what do you expect the universe to look like if there is a transcendent Christian Deity that actively interacts with the workings of the universe? How does that particular fact enhance our ability to predict the future (i.e. to understand the causes and effects of observed phenomena)?

If your answer is anything less than a rigorous grant proposal, I'd suggest you restrict your assertions to mysticism, and leave cosmology to the professionals. (Of which, again, I am not yet a member.)

http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/9017/scienceh.th.jpg

Originally posted by truejedi
so where did the universe come from?
Define "universe." At the singularity, there would literally be no width, depth, length, or duration. Space did not exist, nor did time.

I cannot emphasize enough how poorly equipped is the human to imagine this state of affairs. We are good at objects that are large relative to the size of an atom moving at slow speeds relative to the speed of light. The singularity and the particles during the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang are neither. It takes supercomputers the size of warehouses and the most bleeding edge mathematics to even begin to account for that handicap.

Originally posted by ares834
If my understanding of it is correct, the Primordial Atom theory holds that said atom contained all matter/energy within it. Thus it really isn't "creating" anything.

This has been addressed already.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
This has been addressed already.
No it hasn't. The theory states that matter/energy was always there is much the same way that God was always there. It does not need to "create itself".

...It's getting too late for me. Up at 3 in the morning for work (11:47 here now). Catch up with you guys later.

I think what Red is getting at is that he essentially agrees with everything I've been saying.

Originally posted by ares834
No it hasn't. The theory states that matter/energy was always there is much the same way that God was always there. It does not need to "create itself".

How did the matter get there? Ohhh, it must have created itself. Now... as I said a minute ago, sleepy time.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
How did the matter get there? Ohhh, it must have created itself. Now... as I said a minute ago, sleepy time.

What? Have you been ignoring what I stated the theory claims that the matter was there since the begining. It has no origin it simply was always there.

Edit: I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, BTW, simply that that argument does not prove it.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
This has been addressed already.

Yes. It has been addressed by scientists who put thought and effort and years of their life into inching our understanding of the universe forward. Oh, did I mention they have proof for their claims?

Originally posted by Iden Enserath
Well the simple fact that time has, at any given time, a present, would prove that it also has a beginning, otherwise there would be an infinite span of time that proceeds any given present point in time, whereby the present point in time would never be able to be fully realised.

Though I must say it's a concept I have a hard time wrapping my head around, but it would seem that time can be proven to possess a beginning, within the confines of potentially imperfect human reasoning.
This is a philosophical argument for something that is (all but) an observed scientific phenomena; the Hubble Telescope discovers more and more ancient formations as it looks into the sky, and the Background Radiation is (again, almost) completely explained by the expansionary model of the universe, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to use outdated logic traps when you can simply point to the night sky.

But yes, the evidence is that time as we experience it has continued for some 14 billion years. (There is one school of thought that I like, in which the universe is in a sort of time loop of expansion and contraction, but the math is still out on that one.)

Nebaris, I think you've got the right idea but are a little behind on the latest facts? Do you try to stay current with science-news? It's hard because journalism on the sciences is so abysmally poor. You practically have to read the papers themselves to know what's going on, and even then you're faced with pages of jargon.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nope, because they have evidence. I'm just not well versed enough to elaborate on it.. I'm reading the second book by Dr. Kaku.

The scientists have one better than evidence:
they have math
:P

It's funny how most people confuse Nominal Christianity with the original teachings - and don't know the difference.

They don't know that Catholicism is different and how much the Catholic Church trashed and warped the teachings of Jesus.

And the funniest part, is when people believe the Bible is simply a book of moral guidlines.

People view Catholicism and Christianity as the same thing, the way people during the Jedi Civil War viewed the Jedi and Sith to be the same.

Ignorance is a shame.

I'm gone for less than a day and first thing I see is this...


What the f*ck are you people on about now?

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
It's funny how most people confuse Nominal Christianity with the original teachings - and don't know the difference.

They don't know that Catholicism is different and how much the Catholic Church trashed and warped the teachings of Jesus.

And the funniest part, is when people believe the Bible is simply a book of moral guidlines.

People view Catholicism and Christianity as the same thing, the way people during the Jedi Civil War viewed the Jedi and Sith to be the same.

Ignorance is a shame.

Here lies DarkSerpent
Perverse, most likely high,
and virulently anti-Catholic

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm gone for less than a day and first thing I see is this...


What the f*ck are you people on about now?
It's the Order 66 thread all over again.

At least I didn't start it this time!

It was the very first political thread. I think Capt. Valerian started the thread, and it had to do with the 501st versus . Maybe HALO?

Anyway, I used Iraq as an analogy and bricks were shat onto fans.

Debates like these have been argued for years now and have never reached a conclusion which is why I prefer not to engage in them most of the time. However, I will tell you guys why I believe there is God that is working far beyond human comprehension. The reason for my belief is: Life here on earth.

Some will argue that life on earth, like the universe, was created by chance or coincidence. What we do know is that life on earth could never exist were it not for a series of other so called "coincidences" such as:

- The earth's location in the solar systen as well as the planet's orbit, tilt, rotational speed, and our unusual moon.

- A magnetic field and an atmosphere that serve as a dual shield.

- Natural cycles that replenish and cleanse the planet's air and water supply.

It is hard for me to believe that all these series of coincidences happened to one planet by chance. Not only that but also the way so many different life forms also came about on one planet. I do not believe that humans, mammals, fish, and plant life were all created on the same exact planet by mere chance. It seems to me that there is a conscious being that was behind all creation. The way life was brought into this world seems far too perfect to develope by chance.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Debates like these have been argued for years now and have never reached a conclusion which is why I prefer not to engage in them most of the time. However, I will tell you guys why I believe there is God that is working far beyond human comprehension. The reason for my belief is: Life here on earth.

Some will argue that life on earth, like the universe, was created by chance or coincidence. What we do know is that life on earth could never exist were it not for a series of other so called "coincidences" such as:

- The earth's location in the solar systen as well as the planet's orbit, tilt, rotational speed, and our unusual moon.

- A magnetic field and an atmosphere that serve as a dual shield.

- Natural cycles that replenish and cleanse the planet's air and water supply.

It is hard for me to believe that all these series of coincidences happened to one planet by chance. Not only that but also the way so many different life forms also came about on one planet. I do not believe that humans, mammals, fish, and plant life were all created on the same exact planet by mere chance. It seems to me that there is a conscious being that was behind all creation. The way life was brought into this world seems far too perfect to develope by chance.

It really isn't perfect at all. It has been a sloppy and messy process that's failed several times and taken 4.5 billion years to get anywhere.

Humans are simply awful at comprehending scale.

Actually there is an argument based on that. It's called the Fine Tuning argument. The problem I have with it is life as we know it could not exist if some of these factors were shifted, however the possabiltiy of life would still not be impossible.

Ultimately, we evolved within the parameters set by this universe.

Originally posted by Lucius
It really isn't perfect at all. It has been a sloppy and messy process that's failed several times and taken 4.5 billion years to get anywhere.

Humans are simply awful at comprehending scale.

Failed several times? Where do you get that? Even if you are correct, do you believe that all the failed attempts were chances also? It would seem that if it was a process that has failed several times, then something or someone was wanting life to be evolved here.

4.5 billion years is really not that long compared to forever.

Originally posted by ares834
Actually there is an argument based on that. It's called the Fine Tuning argument. The problem I have with it is life as we know it could not exist if some of these factors were shifted, however the possabiltiy of life would still not be impossible.

Ultimately, we evolved within the parameters set by this universe.

You know for some reason it took me a while to get what you were saying (lol). But I get what you're saying now.

My main thing is how so many different life forms all happened on one planet. It's like this planet was specifically designed to support life. Kinda like it's purpose was to hold life.

Or it just so happened to be able to hold life.

Double post ftw.

What was before the Big Bang is a subject to more or less probable theories, both philosophical and scientific.

In this sense atemporal, immaterial, all-powerful, personal being/God can be the cause for the Big Bang, considering that time and space themselves came into being in that very moment.




On a side note:
About theories that deal with actual infinity. What about an infinite chain of events? Is this not paradoxical, for evens, if happening in the material universe, have to have a cause. And I stress, I mean infinity as existing within the material reality, not as an abstract idea.

I think you guys are missing the point. Any of the things stated being true doesn't preclude the possibility of God existing. Again, different explanation for same event.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Failed several times? Where do you get that? Even if you are correct, do you believe that all the failed attempts were chances also? It would seem that if it was a process that has failed several times, then something or someone was wanting life to be evolved here.

4.5 billion years is really not that long compared to forever.

There have been several mass extinction events and at least one genetic bottle where a big chunk of the early modern human population got wiped out. That being said...

...the universe is not tailored for life, life is tailored for the universe via natural selection. The idea that one planet with life around one star in one galaxy is unique, is to betray a gross lack of comprehension of scale.

There are billions of stars per galaxy and hundreds of billions (somewhere close to 200 I believe) of galaxies in the observable universe alone. Due to the inflation period, the lower bound for the diameter of the universe is close to 90 billion light years.

Given those numbers, why should one planet with life, orbiting one star, in one galaxy be so marvellously unique? Relative to the cosmic scale, we are not unique nor are not special; we are utterly and completely insignificant. We could expand outward in a radius of 100 million light years and still be utterly insignificant.

Originally posted by Lucius
There have been several mass extinction events and at least one genetic bottle where a big chunk of the early modern human population got wiped out. That being said...

...the universe is not tailored for life, life is tailored for the universe via natural selection. The idea that one planet with life around one star in one galaxy is unique, is to betray a gross lack of comprehension of scale.

There are billions of stars per galaxy and hundreds of billions (somewhere close to 200 I believe) of galaxies in the observable universe alone. Due to the inflation period, the lower bound for the diameter of the universe is close to 90 billion light years.

Given those numbers, why should one planet with life, orbiting one star, in one galaxy be so marvellously unique? Relative to the cosmic scale, we are not unique nor are not special; we are utterly and completely insignificant. We could expand outward in a radius of 100 million light years and still be utterly insignificant.

Given this sound logic, to suggest that "we are alone" in the galaxy, much less the universe, is ignorance at its finest. That's why I believe in Aliens and UFOS

Zampano/Red - Math is a funny little thing you see. I can start with a conclusion, work backwards, and make math work for a myriad of things that are not necessarily reality. Now with that being said; there are numerous holes in the equation regarding whether or not the universe, as we perceive it, sprang from two extra-dimensional membranes colliding - resulting in a big bang. This is NOT an established 'fact' in any way, shape, or form. I would advise you to check your information more thoroughly before stating that the math proves your/scientists claims. And the sny remarks that you like to throw out do not in any way support your position - they only make you (who has otherwise garnered my respect) out to be an ass in this 'debate'.

And these scientists - these wondrous, remarkable, geniuses were just a little off when they 'knew' the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe/galaxy/solar system. Science is progressive, which is why one should take their findings with a grain of salt until such findings can be observed/experienced firsthand.

Ok, I kind of regret starting this..........


Honestly, yes, I believe in God, but I also know alot more than the average Christian than the ones who just take it either A)Blindly and reak out if they dont live by the Bible or B)Think that all science is bs and take the Bible word for word.


Honestly, Earth, only planet with water, only one with all the right conditions for life to flourish, that cant be a coincidence. But its also possible that alot of what science said is true, but created by God (or however you name Him) But when people say they think that, they are ridiculed by both groups, when honestly they have the highest probability of being correct. The things needed for life, water, breathable air (granted, you can adapt) and all the other things Earth is exactly right on, I dont see how that can be one big cosmic accident, and alot of science IS bs, like (forgive me) Evolution, if it existed, where are the fish with legs? Where are the Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? If evolution existed those should still be around, still evolving. But they are all dead.

Wow...this thread got really really off track...

Originally posted by Pwned
Honestly, Earth, only planet with water, only one with all the right conditions for life to flourish, that cant be a coincidence.
Earth is most certainly not the only planet with water. And in all likleyhood there are probably hundreds of planets that can support life. Consider the vastness of space, there are millions (probably far more) of galaxies each with billions of stars and each star typically has a couple planets. As such it is quite likley that there are many more planets sutiable for holding life.



How does that disprove evolution? In fact it shows that these specific things were unable to countine living on in the current, at that time, conditions of the world.

There is no regret, there is the Force.


There are three things that I would like to say to this post.

When you have a two different scenarios, the one with less detail is more likely. For example, do you think it is more probable that Alvin is a bank teller, or that Alvin is a bank teller who practices magic tricks in his spare time? If you would like more information on probability theory, PM me and I'll be happy to elaborate.
Who is ridiculing Christian apologists? I pointed to one scientist that advocates just the sort of compatibility suggested by your post. Did you follow the link to Francis S. Collins? He is a scientist that has a strong belief in the Christian God, and does a reasonably good job of reconciling Christianity with scientific fact. Another powerfully gifted Christian intellectual is C.S. Lewis. I am a bit leery of calling the mass of all Christians throughout history stupid; some of the best minds throughout history have been Christian. If atheism were a question of intelligence, there would not be the powerful tradition of Christian Scholarship that survived the ages.
Evolution is not something that can be ignored; I believe a rudimentary understanding to be important even for the layperson. The fact of evolution is seen in the rapid mutation of diseases, most notably the HIV virus. (The methods to treat that disease actually coerce the virus to mutate into a sterile version of itself. Very cool.) Moreover, the evidence for evolution is myriad and entirely consistent. While I do not have the space or motivation to outline the entire field online (although I have tried to do so in the past) I would like to point you toward these two quotations:

The essay from which the above passage is quoted must already be more than 35 years old, and science has marched onward. The specific facts in the article (which you are welcome to search out at your leisure) may be out of date or may even still be applicable, but the sentiment has not been weakened one iota by a greater understanding of the universe. We are in a stronger position now than ever in the past to endorse the validity of evolutionary theory. Even without a single fossil, argues Dawkins, the theory of Evolution would still be the most thoroughly supported scientific concept of all time.

If you were referring to actual living fish and dinosaurs, then I'll just point you to a Mass Extinction event as well as the lungfish.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Zampano/Red - Math is a funny little thing you see. I can start with a conclusion, work backwards, and make math work for a myriad of things that are not necessarily reality. Now with that being said; there are numerous holes in the equation regarding whether or not the universe, as we perceive it, sprang from two extra-dimensional membranes colliding - resulting in a big bang. This is NOT an established 'fact' in any way, shape, or form. I would advise you to check your information more thoroughly before stating that the math proves your/scientists claims. And the sny remarks that you like to throw out do not in any way support your position - they only make you (who has otherwise garnered my respect) out to be an ass in this 'debate'.

I don't understand. What is your specific criticism, here? If you have found a fundamental flaw in mathematics, then congratulations. You just got every PhD from every university in the world.

I'd also like to ask what level of math education you've received. If you've found flaws in the published work of a prominent scientist, then I would encourage you to publish a critique of your own. Finding a flaw in that field puts you on the short track for every doctorate program in the world. I cannot emphasize how monumentally big it is that you've shown how QM is wrong. There are book deals, honorary degrees, and Russian supermodels in your future. Chicks dig guys with all of the money. All of it.





...





































You haven't done any of that, have you?

Your announcement that the math is wrong, that wasn't based on a perfect understanding of the material and a fundamental insight into the nature of reality, was it? That's too bad, I was really happy for you. Until that hits, I'll just go ahead and stick with the people who invest 8 years of their life to reach basic competence in the subject to catch the errors of their rivals, rather than some random poster on KMC.

^^^
See that? That was me being snide. Just disagreeing with your position does not make someone an ass; striking out and trying to badmouth everyone who disagrees with you does that already.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Given this sound logic, to suggest that "we are alone" in the galaxy, much less the universe, is ignorance at its finest. That's why I believe in Aliens and UFOS
DS, I believe in aliens, but why would they come here? We're just some backwards hillbilly planet that doesn't even have FTL yet. The only reason there would be UFOs is if they left some tech behind while building the Pyramids.

Or giving Egyptians lightbulbs ^.^

Or building Puma Punca ^.^

Or a myriad of other things, including Chocolate Donuts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's not your job to atttempt to grasp the logic of those that are potentially more advanced than you in every aspect. Who knows? Natural resources maybe? The point is, the law/rule (whichever it is) of probability states that not only do "aliens" exist, but more than likely there are highly advanced civilizations out there.
Oh totally. I'm just not convinced they've been here.



My favorite trope in sci-fi is when the hyperadvanced aliens have mastered their own branch of technology, for example the control of gravity, but are garbage at something in which we excel. Maybe they'll be really good at computer science but not as good with materials or engineering or *gasp* law. How cool would it be to have a bunch of gullible hyper advanced aliens?

never mind that FTL actually is impossible in anything other than theoretical physics.

Originally posted by truejedi
never mind that FTL actually is impossible in anything other than theoretical physics.
Well, right. Never mind that.

I'm actually giving a speech on hard science fiction at an oral symposium on campus, comparing and contrasting Heinlein and Star Wars.

I have this awesome slide of Tagge asking Tarkin where they are going to get the necessary exojoules to blow up an entire planet and spread its mass.

it doesn't get better than Orson Scott Card and the Ender series..

Originally posted by truejedi
it doesn't get better than Orson Scott Card and the Ender series..

I really need to read the rest of the series. I've only read Ender's Game.

Originally posted by truejedi
it doesn't get better than Orson Scott Card and the Ender series..
Originally posted by Lucius
I really need to read the rest of the series. I've only read Ender's Game.
It's not hard sci-fi. It's mysticism. Fair warning.

Yeah. I read the second one. Not a fan. Honestly the aliens in that novel make the Ewoks look good.

Originally posted by ares834
Yeah. I read the second one. Not a fan. Honestly the aliens in that novel make the Ewoks look good.
I dunno, I enjoyed the books. I'm just a bit disillusioned because I thought they were the best thing ever, and then I found out they are at best average. Link to absolutely damning review by some guy with opinions.

no, cause i definitly have an opinion, and i'm not going to change it for "some guy".

Oh, I didn't say I agree with the guy, just that he is a person with opinions. I think he goes a little far; the book (like porn) is enjoyable, and not without merit. He's got a good take on the battle sequences, if you ask me, though. (Note: I read the review somethink like 3 monghx aog)

ah, ok. I just don't want it to taint a part of my early adulthood that I remember as MOST enjoyable!

See I read it while I was in seventh or eighth grade. It was more like "world-changing explanation of genius" and less like "entertaining story about blowing shit up." So I'm having rebellion against that because I'm now in a position to understand and enjoy things much more deeply. Also, bewbz.

The Ender series is ok but it's pretty weak next to some of the better Science Fiction stories out there.

If you want to experience the very best that the genre has to offer, look no further than:

The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov

The Light of Other Days, The Fountains of Paradise, A Fall of Moondust, The Songs Of Distant Earth, Childhood's End, The Space Odyssey Series, and The Rama Series, by Arthur C. Clarke

Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I will Fear No Evil, and The Number of the Beast, by Robert A. Heinlein

Originally posted by Zampanó

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah................

Nuh uh!

are you twelve?

Midgets are funnah.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Midgets are funnah.

So is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts&feature=related

Only ****ing sick ****ers would laugh at a mentally handicapped being. **** off sir. **** right ****ing off with that ****ing shit you cockgobbling assmaster.

<3

I'd bet all my money on that one to win.

i love the comment. "Well, it's difficult to masturbate to, but not impossible."

Originally posted by truejedi
i love the comment. "Well, it's difficult to masturbate to, but not impossible."

How is it possible though. I tried, and well... shame.