evolution/creationism

Lifer – Member

Horizon

Okay you win

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Toys 19 aren't they trying to find that answer to what happened before the big bang in the hadron colider? The higgs Boson or the 'God Particle'. What happens when they (if they do) find that? Another question is asked and the whole thing is started up again. You can't ever find a deffinitive answer to whether god exists or not because it is faith that drives the desire to believe in him/it. All you do is push the understanding of what gods role in all of this is further away. Just like in Hitch Hickers Guide to the Galaxy. The bable fish is conclusive proof that god exists but because gor requires faith to exist he disapears in a puff of logic or something. Like someone said earlier in the post there is no evedence either way. There never will be. No matter how many small building blocks to the universe you find there will always be something else to look for. I also think the point you made is what dedly darcy was eluding to. There was a point of super dense and super hot matter then it exploded creating the universe after 1 secon hydrogen was created etc. The point is how did the super hot super dense bit of matter get there. Had it always been there just suspended floating around in nothing or did a higher power go I create this ball of super hot super dense matter and when I click my fingers (or blow my celestial whistle) you explode into the universe creating all things that exist in it and deny all things within it an inate understanding of what it is they are doing and/or why.

I think you're confusing evidence with proof. There is no proof for what I say, but I see it as evidence. Lots of evidence but no proof.

I think you are arguing semantics to avoid the logic, but okay. So when you said…

It might not make any sense, or be provable scientifically, but why should it be? For proof of the existence of God (who is manifest on this Earth by love, some would say), I look to the work of religious organisations who provide all sorts of help to people who need it.

did you mean that work was "evidence" or "proof"?

And either way, how is it not questionable given that atheists perform similar work, without the benefits of God, apples or wooden legs.

alex222 – Member

Toys 19 aren't they trying to find that answer to what happened before the big bang in the hadron colider? / TRUNCATED FOR BREVITY ? tle) you explode into the universe creating all things that exist in it and deny all things within it an inate understanding of what it is they are doing and/or why.

Yup fine, I agree, just one question. How did God get there?

did you mean that work was "evidence" or "proof"?

Bah! I should have said evidence.

… also, Quantum Physics, wherein something can simultaneously exist and not exist. Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me.

So intuitively does it make sense that an object the size of a pinhead could be heavy enough to crush you?

Or that combining flammable gases can create a liquid that is pretty good at putting out fires?

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

No I don't write poetry, although in teenage flushes of unrequited love, I did make some poor attempts. They were quite embarrassing to be honest. I do like William Butler Yeats though – it takes a reasonable level of intelligence to understand his poetry. You should try reading the Lake Isle of Innisfree – it's a beautiful poem about the sometimes need for solitude from our busy lives. Rich with metaphor, science would struggle to explain the beauty of Yeats' verse. I can't imagine his intellect being compressed into a single point, let alone the rest of the universe along with it. His brother was a rather fine painter too.

I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one? If so, then I bow to your undoubted superior intellect. All I said was that the solar system tv series gave me a new insight into things. Also, the recent series of Horizon had lots of stuff about the universe, including one programme entitled "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?". That opened my eyes a bit I can tell you.

I used to watch Equinox too – Horizon is sort of dumbed down recently I feel, but it helps some of us to understand these complex questions.

I'm really pleased to have a stalker now. I think my deadlydarcy persona is just here though. Though, feel free to search elsewhere…maybe you already have.

I don't know. Thats my point. I'm not even saying he/it is there. I'm just pointing out that science can't prove everything it just show how much more there is to learn. Could god be the universe? Could god be the point of matter that existed before the big bang? I don't know, I'm not paid to find out I just think having an open mind is the most important thing. Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific.

GrahamS – Member

… also, Quantum Physics, wherein something can simultaneously exist and not exist. Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me.

So intuitively does it make sense that an object the size of a pinhead could be heavy enough to crush you?

Or that combining flammable gases can create a liquid that is pretty good at putting out fires?

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

I need lessons in composition, why can you write what I want to say in about a 10th of the number of lines. I write for a living too…

Molgrips I'm sorry I confussed religion and creationism. I did mean religion, I do accept that creatiosm as a form of fundamentalist christianity is wrong. I did mean the story of creation in the bible aka christianity.

Intuition can be a terrible measure of bolloxosity, as it relies on your current knowledge as a frame of reference.

But can science explain a woman's intuition?

I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one?

As mentioned in my first reply to you, no.

And my laughing at Horizon was because I agree with you on the dumbing down, soon half the programme is going to be long shots of scientists walking through warehouses. I saw that same progamme about everything we know being wrong, but didn't think it was very good. The one on infinity was excellent though.

Also DK i think quantum physics is no more bs than relligion in this sense. How could god create him self as himself on earth yet somehow be his own son who doesn't know who he is and then a ghost comeback to life when he comes back to life and then talk to someone as a real person but be a ghost who is god who is his son whos is a ghost made of orange with a candle on top and a bit of red ribon around the middle?

alex222 – Member

I don't know. Thats my point. I'm not even saying he/it is there. I'm just pointing out that science can't prove everything it just show how much more there is to learn. Could god be the universe? Could god be the point of matter that existed before the big bang? I don't know, I'm not paid to find out I just think having an open mind is the most important thing. Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific.

What you say is a far cry from creationism, the bible and all that crap. Think of it another way, who first discovered God, can you imagine how? I like the atheists idea of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM), if you apply the same thinking that you have applied to god, i.e. you cannot prove he doesn't exist, then I say its not god its the FSM, or orbital chocolate teapots or any other fantasy you want. This woolly thinking has no place in our world. We can only believe in what we can observe, we can only prove that something does exist, not the other way round. So we could spend the rest of our lives postulating new hidden deities, and that to quote some of the big thinkers above, is BOLLOX

But there are many things which we observe but cannot explain. The beauty of a flower, woman's intuition, Lionel Messi, consciousness. I wish science would get on with explaining these things instead of worrying about Big Bang Bollocks.

deadlydarcy – Member I don't recall claiming to be an astrophysicist. Are you one?

Nope but I am a physicist. Maybe this conversation will serve as to get you educated, why not do physics A level in night school? Then come back and comment.

deadlydarcy – Member

But can science explain a woman's intuition?
Has anybody ever found any evidence that women's intuition actually exists?
I've never seen any.

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world 🙂

deadlydarcy – Member

But there are many things which we observe but cannot explain. The beauty of a flower, woman's intuition, Lionel Messi, consciousness. I wish science would get on with explaining these things instead of worrying about Big Bang Bollocks.

If you look hard enough you will find science has an explanation for many of these things (apart from Lionel Messi who is he?), you are basically commenting from a position of ignorance.

molgrips – Member

Intuitively, this seems like bollox to me

Well, it's not. At least, I assume you are talking about the superposition of quantum states, rather than something not existing and existing. Something can be in two states at the same time. It all makes perfect sense if you actually study it properly. It's all about waves, which can be super-imposed on each other quite readily.

This woolly thinking has no place in our world

No? Why's that then?

I think that what you meant to say was that it has no place in YOUR world

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

I'll think you will find I phrase my sentences quite carefully so do not waste your time trying to correct them, what you think I wanted to say has no bearing on what I said and what I wanted to say. Woolly thinking has no place in your world either, unless you can prove to me that God exists, then he doesn't and no amount of postulating or talking about it will prove otherwise.

all of those things can be explained by evolution darcey, not proved but can be explained

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

alex222 – Member

You call it the FSM or god it doesn't make any difference. I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god they just don't want to call it god because then they're accepting religious teachings, mostly because of a need to be subversive not because of any true desire to find understanding of anything. Its the most absurd counter argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't nhiedls bhor and einsten both very religious. So much so that einstein married his own cousin and I was of the belief that to be that inbread you had to be religious. As for proving something that does exist like the god particle? People believe it exsts so much they look for it, then they can't find it so they rationalise about it. It sounds alot like religion to me. Reminds me of an episode of the tick where scientists discovered that light wasn't the fastest thing in the universe lint was, why? Because its already there when you get your jeans out of the washing machine.

They postulated the FSM to prove exactly how absurd god is, they don't believe in the FSM, they use it as an example to show how dumb believing in a god is. The rest of what you wrote there is just irrelevant. Apart from the lint thing, that was funny.

I also thought quantum physics explained the same thing existing twice using photons. Light can therefore behave has a particle and a wave. I remember an experiment with an plate and some kind of device where by if light were a wave changing the intensity would mean changing the frequency hence taking it out of the visible spectrum whereas if light were a particle changing the intensity ment more particles hitting the plate. Hence light can exist as a particle and a wave, allowing one photon it to be diffracetd into two points of light.

why not do physics A level in night school

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better? From my studies into Buddhism, I've gained a useful insight into why others choose to insult…but I'm always open to furthering that insight. It's a fine religion you know.

So I watch TV and read a bit about it on Wiki…going any deeper would simply confuse me. Whenever I flip a bit of pron onto my phone, mrs deadly comes downstairs even though I've got it on silent. Isn't that woman's intuition?

Did you have a read of that poem? I find that sciencey types get so involved in their world of discovery that sometimes they forget the beauty that's around them, that hasn't been explained yet?

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

How many people fully understand the workings of, for example, an iPhone?

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Here's a question:

Would you prefer to jump from a cliff with a hang-glider that had been designed by someone with knowledge of accepted engineering principles of wing design or one that had been designed by somebody without technical knowledge but a lot of prayer?

not proved but can be explained

And as a more intelligent man than me once said, therein lies the rub.

Appart for the looking for something that doesn't exist. Like hmmm the higgs boson?

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily. Is this to make me feel bad? Or to make yourself feel better?

You're the one that came on the thread with the argument 'The Big Bang is a bollocks theoary so it must be bollocks'

Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said? 😀

I've never heard of that and the fact that athiest have a theory of a FSM basically means that they do believe in god

read about His noodly appendage here[/URL]

Atheists don't believe in FSM either. Only the devoted Pastafarians do.

But this would never get me to the level of guys like you, yet you feel the need to insult my level of intelligence so readily.

How do you know it wouldnt help you to understand this, I think it would. I wasn't insulting you, more taking the pish, but the night school comment was genuine freindly encouragement. Do it, science is wonderful and beautiful.

I find you non science types get involved in your world of whatever that you forget the beauty that's intrinsic in the physical word around us.

I haven't read the poem, I have googled it though and will take a look, 99% of poetry I find dull, quite like Seigfried Sassoon and some of the other war poets though.

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Yes! St. Steven!

Alex222 do you want some more quotes to prove you wrong about Einstein?

And how do you know it doesn't exist when we've only just developed the equipment necessary to start looking for it?

"Saying something is the deffinative answer surely is unscientific."

Hypocrite.

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither 🙂

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

alex222 – Member
Lifer, what do you do for a job? Look uo what some people once said?

No, I work in accounts.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

molgrips – Member

Molgrips which side of the fence are you on?

Both, and neither

The question remains, if I like Woolly Thinking, why should I not be allowed to think in a Woolly manner?

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

As I said before I'm not an exclusionist, you think what you like. I won't take you seriously that's all.

I am going to make lifers quote my tag line. It's just about the most sensible thing I've heard all day and quite witty.

I thought it was good practise to back up what you say with evidence, otherwise you could spout any old nonsense.

Science clearly works for you, Woolliness might work for me. As long as I am not influencing others, or trying to do anything scientific, what's the Woolly problem?

Woolliness is fine based on that description.