11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Will Everittnot always but there are time when it can do the job better for example if i wanted to errode a big block of rock it would be much easier to leave it in the sea then use intelligence
"So random chance, time and non-intelligence always triumphs over intelligence?"
not always but there are time when it can do the job better for example if i wanted to errode a big block of rock it would be much easier to leave it in the sea then use intelligence
"C'mon it wouldn't be that expensive - arrange all the amino acids in the correct ...[text shortened]... so i would like funding to terraform a planet into the right situation and leave it long enough.
Yep. That would be breaking something down into simpler parts; in this case we need a complex self-replicating micro-organism.
you asked to do ti with no inteligence so i would like funding to terraform a planet into the right situation and leave it long enough.
I'm still hoping you go for the lab with the scientists.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWell in a way its like saying you want a diffrent kind of cat and then puting a normal one on and island and slowly change one of the factors that will affect evolution and after X years would will have a cat in the from you want it. that is an example of how you could use nature to build somethings complexity up.
Yep. That would be breaking something down into simpler parts; in this case we need a complex self-replicating micro-organism.
Didnt mean to post twice sorry
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWell in a way its like saying you want a diffrent kind of cat and then puting a normal one on and island and slowly change one of the factors that will affect evolution and after X years would will have a cat in the from you want it. that is an example of how you could use nature to build somethings complexity up.
Yep. That would be breaking something down into simpler parts; in this case we need a complex self-replicating micro-organism.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Will EverittIt's more like transmogrifying it from complex chemicals.
Well in a way its like saying you want a diffrent kind of cat and then puting a normal one on and island and slowly change one of the factors that will affect evolution and after X years would will have a cat in the from you want it. that is an example of how you could use nature to build somethings complexity up.
Didnt mean to post twice sorry
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Will EverittI have a problem with a book that most say its subject to interpritation but then others say its flawless. It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed.
I have a problem with a book that most say its subject to interpritation but then others say its flawless. It must be flawed considering some of the interpritaions are flawed. I know radioactive dating might be out by a margin but there are many other ways of adding to its reliabityfor example pre-cambrian rocks are far older then the bible would suggest t ...[text shortened]... belive something in a book is flawed if i know there are other things wrong with it(in my eyes).[/b]
I would never belive something due to just one experiment or 1 claim and thats all the bible is, many of the sciences back each other up and support each other whereas a book that disagees with them still gets people to belive it.
This is not entirely true, and you miss the point of the Bible. The purpose of the Bible or any other scripture is not to explain God or scientifically reveal the mysteries of his creation. The scientists who reject the scripture do so because they find contradictions with their theories. This is the wrong approach, and this is not why God gave us the scripture. The scripture is here for us to find God and this is the soul purpose of it.
Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
This is the way that the scripture tells us to find/understand God. If you believe nothing else in the scripture, believe this one verse. Unless of coarse you are not interested in finding God. In which case you are correct that the scripture is of no use to you.
The reason why the scripture is interpreted in so many ways is because too many people try to take the scientific approach with it. They try to interpret the scripture literally, and of coarse the scripture is open to interpretation.
The world is full of many different kinds of people, and God gave each a different religion that is suited to them. Only those who are serious about finding God derive any benefit from the scripture. Only those who have found God know how to interpret the scripture.
Luke 8: 9-10 And the disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Here Jesus is saying that the scripture does not and will not explain God. Finding God is a spiritual journey that we are all on to varying degrees, and one that we will all someday complete.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
This is where God is. This is where God can be found. The scripture can serve as a type of guidebook for us to go by in order to live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God, but it can never reveal God to anybody. God has to be experienced, not explained.
And to add to this on a non scientifical basis i still disagree with the bible as i find it hard to belive in muitple religions that are correct there is nothing that gives any of them any proof its any better then any others.
There is plenty of proof for those who are sincere.
Hebrews 11:1-2 NOW FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The problem is that science produces evidence for everybody to see. Religion/spirituality produces evidence for only the individual to see. This is why the scientific approach to religion comes up short. The process of finding God is not always logical and mathematical, and it usually cannot be proven to other people.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Will EverittIn extreme gravitational fields or at speeds close to that of light, Newton's laws do not accurately describe the motion of objects. Relativistic formulas (Einstein) are necessary. As I said previously, Einstein's laws are fundamentally different than those of Newton (not simply a modification) because they describe events in terms of a space-time continuum as opposed to 3D space and an independent linear progression of time.
I think one day we will have laws that describe things perfectly this is what science is striving for a law that is perfect. Also how do newtons laws disagree on an astronmical scale?i thoguht they were fine when you taking everything into account.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressActually, hydrogen and oxygen molecules do not readily attract each other. H2 and O2 do not combine spontaneously, they require energy to split the 2 H atoms and the 2 O atoms apart. The resulting H2O has a lower energy than the free atoms, and according with the laws of thermodynamics they combine and release energy (light, sound and heat). Try setting light to a small (test tube volume) quantity of hydrogen. You could try a larger volume of you like (Hindenburg).
[b]The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Science (by means of the scientific method) is the observation, testing and hypothesising of nature's laws.
Yes, this is the process of learning.
If you believe in a creator, ...[text shortened]... o that they attract one another and form water, but he somehow did not create water. Is this it?
11 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by yousersI agree that science has a long, long way to go before it can perfectly describe the physical world, but this does not mean that at least some of the things that have been shown by science are not in fact true.
We seem to have opposite views here on one point. I'm not sure I can convince you to change your mind, but you seem to be saying that : scientific law=the physical universe
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
Here are some of my reasons:
1. I agree when you say that the physical world is constant and would continue without our existence. (although I ca ...[text shortened]... e physical world is NOT encompassed or perhaps even accurately reflected in the laws of science.
We know that cells have a nucleus for example. We know that the nucleus has DNA in it. We are always developing new ways to look more closely at things, but the basic facts are unlikely to change.
If you believe that God created everything then it is necessary to believe that God created the things that we observe through science. If we can verify through science that H & O Edit: "atoms" form water, why is it so difficult to believe that God created them to do this? If God has in fact created them to do this, this would be an example of how the laws of science are God’s laws.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, I’m aware that H Edit "atoms" don’t exist by themselves anywhere in nature. They are all bound to other Edit: "atoms", and today it takes energy to break the bonds. Nevertheless, would you agree that at some point in the history of creation the H atoms bonded with the O atoms to form water?
Actually, hydrogen and oxygen molecules do not readily attract each other. H2 and O2 do not combine spontaneously, they require energy to split the 2 H atoms and the 2 O atoms apart. The resulting H2O has a lower energy than the free atoms, and according with the laws of thermodynamics they combine and release energy (light, sound and heat). Try sett ...[text shortened]... test tube volume) quantity of hydrogen. You could try a larger volume of you like (Hindenburg).
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWhy do you use the word triumph? In evolutionary biology there is no 'triumph', no right or wrong, good or bad, there just IS.
[b]Provided that there is an adequate supply of energy, water (mainly due to of physico-chemical properties on earth), and the most abundant element was either carbon or silicon then I would suggest that provided the right conditions (such as a sea which slops about abit) are present life will evolve given enough time.
So random chance, time and non- ...[text shortened]... quence, give them a whammy - blast 'em with energy and presto, the monster awakes; easy as pie.[/b]
Slipping you a fast one. Prove that an organism will emerge.
Well, I don't think I am slipping you a fast one. I have made a prediction based upon mankinds knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology. My prediction is that an organism will evolve given more time (than the amino acid producing experiments). I am unable to test this conclusively without sufficient funds, but the thought experiment is sound. Science works by disproving things. Let's face it, any theory stands until someone DISPROVES it. Again, back to you.
C'mon wouldnt be that expensive - arrange all the amino acids...
Well, I'm being relatively kind with my estimate. You said the evolution has to happen by random chance. Ok.
Take an olympic sized swimming pool (it needs to be completely sterilised first - pretty much impossible in it's own right), make the room that it is in air tight, and replace the air with CO2, CH4 etc, get some large eletrodes capable of discharging a couple of million volts a time. Illuminate using strong ionising radiation, and replace the water with a C rich N rich broth of simple chemicals, ph around 5.5 - 6. You'll need the bottom of the pool to grade from very deep (10 m) to dry land, and preferably to be rough in texture. Install a wave machine too. Run for 80,000 years and sample every 10 or so years. Yeah, a few hundred billion will do it.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOf course, I agree that H and O atoms bonded to produce water. I think you mean H+ atoms / ions though, not molecules. Molecules must be composed of more than one atom.
Yes, I’m aware that H molecules don’t exist by themselves anywhere in nature. They are all bound to other molecules, and today it takes energy to break the bonds. Nevertheless, would you agree that at some point in the history of creation the H molecules bonded with the O molecules to form water?
H2 molecules do exist in nature, but they are very rare Look in the upper stratosphere (lighter than most other components of air), although they are a component of the atmosphere generally (although in very low concentrations). Likewise H+ ions are what give solutions their acidity, so look in geothermal pools, etc (although the sea or a glass of tap water will also do.) to find them!
11 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzOk, I was talking about atoms then. It helps to use the proper scientific terms. 😉
Of course, I agree that H and O atoms bonded to produce water. I think you mean H+ atoms / ions though, not molecules. Molecules must be composed of more than one atom.
H2 molecules do exist in nature, but they are very rare Look in the upper stratosphere (lighter than most other components of air), although they are a component of the atmosphere ...[text shortened]... in geothermal pools, etc (although the sea or a glass of tap water will also do.) to find them!
11 Dec 05
Okay, I still haven't recieved a satisfactory (or, in fact, any) response to why the bible states that land plants (first showed up in the fossil record ~400 million years ago) were created before the sun (c. 6 - 10 billion years, as a guess). Or that birds (150 million years old, the first being archaeopteryx) were created before land animals (again probably ~ 400 million years ago).