SPAM Alert!
Energy to kickstart the universe can come from NOTHING.
Originally posted by Templares
Energy to kickstart the universe can come from NOTHING.
"Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero."
The above does not mean "nothing" in the absolute sense. If you press your hands together with equal force, the resultant movement is zero, but energy is still present.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
If scientists supported evolution as if it were a religion, then they'd still be reading On the Origin of the Species and viewing what Darwin wrote back then as the one true answer to life.
As for the Rex article, this is the first time it's been discovered, and it was mainly due to the fact that they had to break the thigh bone in two in order to transport it, which is a rarity because usually every effort is made to bring it back intact. It was serendipity so to speak.
The bone itself has been dated to 70 million years, and the scientists have even admitted that this means they're going to have to re-think their methods of fossil excavation.
This means that they're going to FIND OUT, to the best of their knowledge, how it was preserved. You keep talking like they're sitting there talking about how it might've happened and are just speculating and asking questions, which is not the case, seeing as how usually when scientists are met with a hypothesis such as this, they tend to run experiments on it, as I stated before. Remember, this was a relatively recent discovery, and it takes time to perform studies and build up data (look at how long it took to map the human genome, not to mention how long it took to know what DNA is).
And, this isn't directed specifically at you, but...
I find it of moderate humor that there are people who chastise Christians for their faith, and yet they'll believe that DNA will come from proteins that are influenced by a satellite close to the Earth.
I think that criticisms of our "blind faith" from these people should be met with a hail of pots and kettles.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, because religion is static. I hear we Christians are still burning witches.
Its like the image of a parent dragging a screaming child somewhere where he does not want to go.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I find it of moderate humor that there are people who chastise Christians for their faith, and yet they'll believe that DNA will come from proteins that are influenced by a satellite close to the Earth.
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. DNA does not come from proteins. Stars (at least the sun) synthesisze many organic bio-molecules, including amino acids. Thats not faith, thats knowledge, which is something that contradicts faith.
Once again, you fail to make a point.
Originally posted by Alliance
Some are. Many others have just advanced from witches to homsexuals. Many are always trying to burn something throughout history.Its like the image of a parent dragging a screaming child somewhere where he does not want to go.
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. DNA does not come from proteins. Stars (at least the sun) synthesisze many organic bio-molecules, including amino acids. Thats not faith, thats knowledge, which is something that contradicts faith.Once again, you fail to make a point.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Take the right set of chemicals; mix well with a close moon for a billion years. Presto! You have DNA.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Some are, yes. However, the majority of Christians...you know, not so much.Yes, I did misspeak by saying "proteins," but that's not really the point.
I'm not a chemist, just a song writer. I'm not even a very good speller, but even I know that an almost imposable odds will happen in an world of endless probabilities.
Originally posted by Thundar
A premise by definition is a proposition or an assumption and being such, it can be labeled as logical or illogical, as well as being labeled true or false.
According to the definition that you provided, a premise is "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn."
Originally posted by Thundar
def: premise
a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
Statements are not logical or illogical, they are true or false.
Originally posted by Thundar
The term logic definitionally can refer to any line of reasoning. You are mistaken when you insinuate the concept exclusively pertains to, is strictly derived from, or always relates to various branches or schools of philosophy when being used in discussion.
I did not state that the term logic "exclusively pertains to, is strictly derived from, or always relates to various branches or schools of philosophy when being used in discussion."
I stated "With regard to logical argumentation, the term logic refers to "the branch of philosophy that analyzes the principles governing correct or reliable inference," not simply "a particular method of reasoning."
Originally posted by Thundar
The definitions of the words in question are solely based on where you derive your reasoning from, which unfortunately limits your understanding of how such terms could be used in other contexts and with other lines of reasoning.If you really want to get into an argument which adresses the derivations of logic, then I suggest you open up another thread in the philosophy forum altogether, so as not to take us away from the original subject matter of this one.
You want to be able to use terms with regard to logical argumentation that refer to the principles governing correct or reliable inference to invalidate the arguments of others, but you do not want to be accountable for applying the terms correctly, or have the terms applied to your arguments. Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either apply the terms correctly, or do not use them.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Some are, yes. However, the majority of Christians...you know, not so much.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, I did misspeak by saying "proteins," but that's not really the point.
It may not be, but my point was that observational evidence is very differnt from faith. Hypothesis is very different from faith. People can let speculation run wild...thats incorrect.
Originally posted by Mindship
"Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero."The above does not mean "nothing" in the absolute sense. If you press your hands together with equal force, the resultant movement is zero, but energy is still present.
Another thing our friend forgot to realize is that ---
The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe it might sum to zero
is equal to "something", specifically "something" happening due to an outside force. Even if one were to accept the above hypothesis as true, they would still be left with the questions "where did this energy come from" and "what caused such an occurance?"
So once again, we really only have two premises. Either the universe was created by a divine force with a purpose in mind, or it was done so by a random force without one.
I tend to think the former is a much more logical than the latter..but that's just me, and to tell you the truth, I've always been known to be a bit on the crazy side..😆
Originally posted by TRH
Before I get involved in this one, thundar to have one bit of evidence that evolution did not happen other than the bible?
*sigh*
🙄
Thundar's answer: You prove to me that God didn't do it!!
TRH: You can't prove a negative I win!!
Thundar: *thinks to self* I could have sworn he just asked me to prove a negative with the above...