BF2S Forums The Science Vs. Religion Thread

IsaacLeavitt wrote:

ok if it is so "proven" prove it. you can't. there is no way possible that life originated from lifeless matter, not to mention where the matter came from... lol even if we all did come from monkeys, God started the entire process by creating the original matter...

that is unless you want to try proving that something can come from nothing without contradicting yourself, and that the something (which just appeared out of nothing) can then break all the laws of nature and physics by just "coming to life" and ,even though it includes breaking the law of entropy, evolves into a higher life form... lol good luck proving that...

You are mixing up two different things, origin of life and evolution. They are intertwined, but are very different studies. The origin of life has several theories, the two most popular among scientists being the "Primal Soup" of aminoacids and other components in the early Earth, and the Cosmogenesis. This is where your argument on "life out of nothing" is to be based.

Evolution is another thing altogether. Totally apart from where it all began, it show how life "evolved". Plenty of fossils to show how life forms changed during time. It has nothing to do innate chemicals "coming to life".

To not give evolution at least a possibility that it might be true is to close your eyes to alot of evidence. Evidence god may have put in front of you.

Here is nice bed time tale:

The universe was made in 6 days
The world population started 6000 years ago with Adam and Eve
* note: Adam had to live for 930 years with the woman who got him kicked out of Eden and betrayed him with his own sons, just ... feel his pain
A 1500 year later the population was washed away completely, because the slut couldn't wait for dinner, and turned us all into sinners
Noah and his happy family started over  4500 years ago and again populated the whole world
About 2000 years ago, there was a very simple carpenter that lived with a virtuous and fertile woman, she was so fertile that life was not created out of lifeless material, but out of plain nothingness.
* note: depending on what texts you are allowed to read the simple carpenter didn't even expanded his family beyond the one that got framed.
We are now all waiting for the person that cheated on death to come back one last time and take us all hand in hand to the Armageddon, happily ever after.

My point?

Not really to laugh with religion (well not a lot), but to point out that the bible was not made to take literally. It should give people some peace when they can't cope with the why or can't  grasp the empty spaces in the how.

As a scientist I prefer finding a logical solution for the wholes in my knowledge of the how, rather than reading the tell tales of Hans and Gretel and their happy family. Those I read to humor myself. But if you need to believe in god, no problem 99% of the world does. Moreover I find it rather creepy that they are all murderous lunatics (although there are certain cofounding factors).

I will even give all those religious people some slack, neither the existence nor the absence of god is provable. (Either way, I'll bet it will be a high impact factor paper if someone could prove me wrong)

Cheers,
R

That's the end of that then.....

Oh dear. I should stay well out of this one.









But.....

IsaacLeavitt wrote:

for all you evolutionists... how can the human brain remember events that are 7+ years in the past, one must remember also that the Human Brain replaces all of its cell in a 7 year time-frame... that means that you have an entirely different brain now than you did when the even occurred; and if cells replicate be making exact copies of themselves how can you remember the past??? plz explain that...

Because the cells replace themselves gradually. All cells are replaced, that doesn't mean to say that every 7 years your body disappears and is replaced by a different one. It is the same with the brain, cells are gradually replaced. I can't understand how anyone could even think this is an argument, it's certainly not an argument worth making and typifies the creationist viewpoint on sciences (not that all creationists hold such stupidly warped views on science, just biology).

topal63 i gotta say i enjoyed your post, but there is one hitch that maybe you could clear up for me. You say everything factual is experienced. Yet what is it that is experiencing? There is nothing in the human organism that can be called the observer but well you and I both know we are at least alive, or think we are.

=Robin-Hood= wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It is the same with the brain, cells are gradually replaced.

Grumph,

I stated it earlier and I'll quickly state it again; get your neurology in order.

Only very limited regions of the brain are known to have adult neurogenesis. In an adult brain, cells in general do not undergo the cell replacement circle. They remain or they die. The hitherto known exceptions are the hippocampus (dentate gyrus) and the subventricular zone. The latter because there are still have active neuroblasts.

So stop the hypothesis that the brain gets replaced... That is just ridiculous.

R

@topal63; good god, you had a spare minute or so? Or did you have that just lingering around to pulverize every single religious smacktard.

More recent developments have shown that braincells have the ability to replace themselves.

Hi to you too topal

Physics, depending on which branch you follow, has several theories. If you follow string theory then the Ekpyrotic theory (ekpyrotic coming from the greek meaning 'conflagrated' or 'out of fire'). This is so complicated that i shouldn't explain it here, but let's give an overview:

According to string theory, all matter is composed of tiny, tiny superstrings - small enough to look like particles. This, if you go on, implies that there are infact more dimensions that the four space-time dimensions we are familiar with. As with most things in science no-one is unanimous in how many there are - some say 11 but some say 26. In any case all these extra dimensioins are 'compactified' (or scrunched up). It is a very weird concept that even phycisists don't understand fully. Anyway, under the best-known version, called M theory, not only are their extra dimensions, these dimensions exist as 'branes', like 'walls' floating in the greater meta-string-universe (yes i made that word up, though all I did was add 'string' to an existing term, meta-universe). According to some, this meta-universe is just a boundless 'false vacuum', a concept so strange that I don't understand it at all (nor do many eminent physicists...) - but at least it injects some notion of conventional space into an utterly alien... something. Thus, the theory is, that some fluctuation in this false vacuum could seed a universe (much like a fluctuation in the early universe seeded galaxies and stars - though there are obvious problems - the lack of gravity, for instance), or that colliding 'branes' some how set off a universe in them.

No, I don't get it either. Nor do most astrophysicists.

My personal opinion is that it didn't explode from 'nothing' at all. The traditional BB theory says that in the beginning, there was a singularity. A singularity is a point with essentially no dimensions and unimaginable mass. NONE of the laws of physics apply to the singularity (except through Hawking black hole decay, which is different). The one other place, as you might've guessed, you can find a singularity is in the middle of black holes. My theory, then, is that in the black hole, space and time were so warped (which is scientifically quite plausible) that they, and the matter inside, spawned a new universe. Perhaps this is where all the 'dark matter' and even stranger 'dark energy' come from.

haha silly puddy.

So if i die, in this string theory is it possible the I that I call I will be transient throughout some different dimension? If so I'm looking forward to it

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

Well worth the effort to watch these vids

Spark wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

haha silly puddy.

So if i die, in this string theory is it possible the I that I call I will be transient throughout some different dimension? If so I'm looking forward to it

In short... in string theory terms, no. The extra dimensions are so small that even a normal particle wouldn't fit in them.

In multiverse theory, yes. So many movies have been made on the subject that you should be able to understand it.

See this is what i don't understand correct me if I'm wrong, don't particles exist only because we observe them? If so would that also apply to these other dimensions, cause after all they are made up of something, or am i way off base here.

The reason i keep pushing this point is the fact that unfortunately human beings in this present moment believe that reality exists outside of their conscious control, but if its true what quantum physics is saying then things exist because i want them to.

While like it was stated before experience is what leads us to empirical data that is observed over and over, but the thing that is doing the observing who/what is IT!?

Pernicious544 wrote:

Religion is the root of all of the problems in our current society and is the biggest breeder of hate and intolerance.

*cough* Are you being sarcastic, or just mulish?

Fen321 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

haha silly puddy.

So if i die, in this string theory is it possible the I that I call I will be transient throughout some different dimension? If so I'm looking forward to it

In short... in string theory terms, no. The extra dimensions are so small that even a normal particle wouldn't fit in them.

In multiverse theory, yes. So many movies have been made on the subject that you should be able to understand it.

See this is what i don't understand correct me if I'm wrong, don't particles exist only because we observe them? If so would that also apply to these other dimensions, cause after all they are made up of something, or am i way off base here.

The reason i keep pushing this point is the fact that unfortunately human beings in this present moment believe that reality exists outside of their conscious control, but if its true what quantum physics is saying then things exist because i want them to.

While like it was stated before experience is what leads us to empirical data that is observed over and over, but the thing that is doing the observing who/what is IT!?

Good to see that you've acquainted yourself with quantum mechanics - you are correct that if something cannot be measured it does not exist. However, these dimensions could (and in all likeliness would) have utterly different laws to the ones we have. Maybe they have anti-gravity instead of gravity.

Quantum physics is utterly counterintuitive. Don't expect to be able to convey to the layman with any speed and much success.

LawJik wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Yah.. And I thought that religion also was the bringer of hope to those that have nothing left..

Isn't facing reality better than lost hope?

Facing reality hopeless? What good would that do?