939 replies to this topic

[ghand]

Nature is awesome, so your saying god created evolution. That's cheating Zuber is now going to explain my appendix which to me is an evolution throw back .

Edited by ghand, 08 January 2014 - 11:39 AM.

[Rosssco]

On nature and evolution stuff.

 

You turn on a light at home, its the electricity that causes the glow, mostly. But as its your wish to have light, you cause it to happen.

The electricity and glass and wire stuff in the bulb is just doing the hard work.

 

Same thing with God, He's got to have some sort of mech to bring about life and change. We call this stuff nature.

So ok nature is doing the hard work, but its still carrying out God's wish.

 

Simple stuff. And aint it a beautiful sunny place down here at the moment too. Nice one nature. 

 

The difference is a Theist / believer thinks that nature was constructed (or developed) to suit us.

 

Where as I (and probably a general athiest / agnostic view) is that we as humans (and all other lifeforms) have evolved and adapted to nature and our environment, a theory that is pretty much proven to have worked.. Just as you could go to an alien planet with a different environment and history and find, well, aliens which are completely different to us..

 

Evolution creates itself though competition between species. No devine intervention required.

[alexb]

Ok, talking about evolution, it's not only valid for physical characteristics, also for social ones. So isn't it true that humans have evolved in such a way that to be able to believe in things that cannot be proven (is gullible the right word for that ) is in fact build into us. Religions in the past provided shelter and in general a better chance of procreation. And actually stimulated having loads of children. Us atheists always ended up at the pointy end of the sword so to speak. So humanity has drifted towards embracing religion and just as we have two legs, we all have this built in capability of believing without knowing. Mr. Spock we're not so to say.

 

Besides atheist, I'm also cynical. I believe the above is true, as it is for many human characteristics. I believe in probability and the skewing of normal distributions (=evolution)

 

 

[TFD]

Evolution is based on ASSUMTION!

 

Yes, it looks like animals evolve like Darwin said (...and as written in his book, he didnt realy believe his THEORY..) but none is proven. It is all assumed and sold to us as true.

 

The famous five "äpe-skulls" evolving into homo Sapien... bla bla bla. No one ever thought that these skulls could be of extinct ape species from early days?

And then there's this thing called "time"...... the allout excuse to backup the assumption how all things worked and evolved. Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiooooooooooooooooonnnnssssssssssss of year made everything how it is now... yeah right.

 

And the most basic essential question of all: Only perfect species survive cause nature rules out the lesser genes (survival of the fittest). Now tell me why a perfect specie would suddenly change to transform into another shape? These changes are going slowly as said before (miiiiiiiiiiiillliiiiooooooooooooooonnsss of years) but these changes are misforms of the perfect specie and misforms die. Simple as that. So what Atheist or science say is that for miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliiooooooooooooooonnssss of years misformed on misformd on misford individuals evolved into a new specie untill a new perfect specie evolved. Surprisonly they all survived generation on generation.

 

Please tell me were are all those millions of "in between" models of misformed species? Do you really think that of all those ape species that evolved from the early ape untill homo sapien just go back to those five skulls? There should be hundreds of different inbetween skulls found wouldn't it?!

 

And if this thing of evolution endured for millions/billions of years..... were are these evolutions now? Ok, we humans grow taller, are not that hairy anymore etc. but we are still the same specie.

 

That is called adaption, not evolution.

 

If you read latin you'll see that evolution means that a mouse can become an elephant.... now that is not happening cause you have to change dna and genes and that 99,9% leads to misform (and death in nature). Not a good base to start a new specie does it.

 

I must say I like a good discussion without people being offended all the time, nice one.

Edited by TFD, 08 January 2014 - 03:17 PM.

[ghand]

Evolution is based on ASSUMTION!   Yes, it looks like animals evolve like Darwin said (...and as written in his book, he didnt realy believe his THEORY..) but none is proven. It is all assumed and sold to us as true.   The famous five "äpe-skulls" evolving into homo Sapien... bla bla bla. No one ever thought that these skulls could be of extinct ape species from early days? And then there's this thing called "time"...... the allout excuse to backup the assumption how all things worked and evolved. Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiooooooooooooooooonnnnssssssssssss of year made everything how it is now... yeah right.   And the most basic essential question of all: Only perfect species survive cause nature rules out the lesser genes (survival of the fittest). Now tell me why a perfect specie would suddenly change to transform into another shape? These changes are going slowly as said before (miiiiiiiiiiiillliiiiooooooooooooooonnsss of years) but these changes are misforms of the perfect specie and misforms die. Simple as that. So what Atheist or science say is that for miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliiooooooooooooooonnssss of years misformed on misformd on misford individuals evolved into a new specie untill a new perfect specie evolved. Surprisonly they all survived generation on generation.   Please tell me were are all those millions of "in between" models of misformed species? Do you really think that of all those ape species that evolved from the early ape untill homo sapien just go back to those five skulls? There should be hundreds of different inbetween skulls found wouldn't it?!   And if this thing of evolution endured for millions/billions of years..... were are these evolutions now? Ok, we humans grow taller, are not that hairy anymore etc. but we are still the same specie.   That is called adaption, not evolution.   If you read latin you'll see that evolution means that a mouse can become an elephant.... now that is not happening cause you have to change dna and genes and that 99,9% leads to misform (and death in nature). Not a good base to start a new specie does it.   I must say I like a good discussion without people being offended all the time, nice one.

We do, well some of us. Ok but gene drift and gene mutation will not always end in disaster. On a DNA strand we are only 5% different to a chimp, some of us a bit more Also things do not evolve to be superior all the time they also evolve to be better suited to another environment. So say a fish that was finding good food in very shallow water evolved with very strong front fins to drag itself back to deeper water and they eventually turned to legs and it ran off. some kept gills and stayed water related, amphibians and such some didn't like getting wet so moved on. It's pretty much all well documented with all the in between critters either still alive or recorded in fossils Like I mentioned earlier it's still going on Lizards turning into snakes being apt for me having been keeping both for years. I have a Sailfin Dragon that's nothing like a bloody snake but some snakes still have inner leg joint bits from when it was a lizard.so a new species was formed when the first lizard slithered off with no legs.just the same as the first fish that decided it didn't like getting wet anymore .

Edited by ghand, 08 January 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[alexb]

Evolution is based on ASSUMTION!

 

Yes, it looks like animals evolve like Darwin said (...and as written in his book, he didnt realy believe his THEORY..) but none is proven. It is all assumed and sold to us as true.

 

The famous five "äpe-skulls" evolving into homo Sapien... bla bla bla. No one ever thought that these skulls could be of extinct ape species from early days?

And then there's this thing called "time"...... the allout excuse to backup the assumption how all things worked and evolved. Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiooooooooooooooooonnnnssssssssssss of year made everything how it is now... yeah right.

 

And the most basic essential question of all: Only perfect species survive cause nature rules out the lesser genes (survival of the fittest). Now tell me why a perfect specie would suddenly change to transform into another shape? These changes are going slowly as said before (miiiiiiiiiiiillliiiiooooooooooooooonnsss of years) but these changes are misforms of the perfect specie and misforms die. Simple as that. So what Atheist or science say is that for miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliiooooooooooooooonnssss of years misformed on misformd on misford individuals evolved into a new specie untill a new perfect specie evolved. Surprisonly they all survived generation on generation.

 

Please tell me were are all those millions of "in between" models of misformed species? Do you really think that of all those ape species that evolved from the early ape untill homo sapien just go back to those five skulls? There should be hundreds of different inbetween skulls found wouldn't it?!

 

And if this thing of evolution endured for millions/billions of years..... were are these evolutions now? Ok, we humans grow taller, are not that hairy anymore etc. but we are still the same specie.

 

That is called adaption, not evolution.

 

If you read latin you'll see that evolution means that a mouse can become an elephant.... now that is not happening cause you have to change dna and genes and that 99,9% leads to misform (and death in nature). Not a good base to start a new specie does it.

 

I must say I like a good discussion without people being offended all the time, nice one.

 

A mouse can turn into an elephant. It kind of did. The african rock hyrax, a small cavia like animal, is closely related to the elephant; from an evolutionary point of view that is.

 

I'm not sure if you understand evolution theory as you talk about misformed and in-between species etc. There are no misformed or in-between species, there are just variations that are fit to certain conditions or not. That's survival of the fittest: the best adapted individuals have a better chance of survival, or better, a better chance to procreate and pass on their genes. That's all. Nature doesn't care. That's why I said you only need a normal distribution and a selection mechanism. Normal distribution because you need a certain variance in the characteristic, e.g. some people are taller than others. Than you need a selection mechanism so that for example taller people are preferred above us dwarfs. Over time, several generations, people get taller and the normal distribution shifts. Ultimately that can lead to different species starting from the same base stock, e.g. one part of the original stock under one set of conditions, the other under a different set. Through generations, the one with differ more and more from the other until at some moment they're not compatible anymore and further along will look totally different (the elephant and the hyrax)

 

With humans it's a bit different, because we're the ultimate success of evolution. In the sense of survival of the fittest I mean. I doesn't mean we're at the summit of evolution or such crap, it just means that our species has the means (brain, hands, tools) to compete very successful (= kill other species so that we have more resources). Humans also still evolve. But more under pressure of social conditions than physical ones. As an example, take eyesight. Lots of people nowadays have pretty bad eyesight. That's because there is no selection mechanism that prevents people with bad eyesight to pass on their genes. You will hardly find any monkeys in the wild with bad eyes. Simply because their chances to pass their genes are about zero.

 

As far as variance goes, you can have relatively small variance as seen in any population or you can have big ones caused by for example mutation. The selection mechanism is still the same. If a mutant is very successful and can procreate and can pass its genes, that will lead to a radical change.

 

What is true is that evolution is a theory and no theory can be proven absolutely right. It's a elegant theory however and has not been proven wrong (yet?). In the chain of evidence there may be parts missing, but that seems very likely given the relative small numbers of fossiles there are.  

[ghand]

Evolution is based on ASSUMTION!   Yes, it looks like animals evolve like Darwin said (...and as written in his book, he didnt realy believe his THEORY..) but none is proven. It is all assumed and sold to us as true.   The famous five "äpe-skulls" evolving into homo Sapien... bla bla bla. No one ever thought that these skulls could be of extinct ape species from early days? And then there's this thing called "time"...... the allout excuse to backup the assumption how all things worked and evolved. Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiooooooooooooooooonnnnssssssssssss of year made everything how it is now... yeah right.   And the most basic essential question of all: Only perfect species survive cause nature rules out the lesser genes (survival of the fittest). Now tell me why a perfect specie would suddenly change to transform into another shape? These changes are going slowly as said before (miiiiiiiiiiiillliiiiooooooooooooooonnsss of years) but these changes are misforms of the perfect specie and misforms die. Simple as that. So what Atheist or science say is that for miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliiooooooooooooooonnssss of years misformed on misformd on misford individuals evolved into a new specie untill a new perfect specie evolved. Surprisonly they all survived generation on generation.   Please tell me were are all those millions of "in between" models of misformed species? Do you really think that of all those ape species that evolved from the early ape untill homo sapien just go back to those five skulls? There should be hundreds of different inbetween skulls found wouldn't it?!   And if this thing of evolution endured for millions/billions of years..... were are these evolutions now? Ok, we humans grow taller, are not that hairy anymore etc. but we are still the same specie.   That is called adaption, not evolution.   If you read latin you'll see that evolution means that a mouse can become an elephant.... now that is not happening cause you have to change dna and genes and that 99,9% leads to misform (and death in nature). Not a good base to start a new specie does it.   I must say I like a good discussion without people being offended all the time, nice one.

  A mouse can turn into an elephant. It kind of did. The african rock hyrax, a small cavia like animal, is closely related to the elephant; from an evolutionary point of view that is.   I'm not sure if you understand evolution theory as you talk about misformed and in-between species etc. There are no misformed or in-between species, there are just variations that are fit to certain conditions or not. That's survival of the fittest: the best adapted individuals have a better chance of survival, or better, a better chance to procreate and pass on their genes. That's all. Nature doesn't care. That's why I said you only need a normal distribution and a selection mechanism. Normal distribution because you need a certain variance in the characteristic, e.g. some people are taller than others. Than you need a selection mechanism so that for example taller people are preferred above us dwarfs. Over time, several generations, people get taller and the normal distribution shifts. Ultimately that can lead to different species starting from the same base stock, e.g. one part of the original stock under one set of conditions, the other under a different set. Through generations, the one with differ more and more from the other until at some moment they're not compatible anymore and further along will look totally different (the elephant and the hyrax)   With humans it's a bit different, because we're the ultimate success of evolution. In the sense of survival of the fittest I mean. I doesn't mean we're at the summit of evolution or such crap, it just means that our species has the means (brain, hands, tools) to compete very successful (= kill other species so that we have more resources). Humans also still evolve. But more under pressure of social conditions than physical ones. As an example, take eyesight. Lots of people nowadays have pretty bad eyesight. That's because there is no selection mechanism that prevents people with bad eyesight to pass on their genes. You will hardly find any monkeys in the wild with bad eyes. Simply because their chances to pass their genes are about zero.   As far as variance goes, you can have relatively small variance as seen in any population or you can have big ones caused by for example mutation. The selection mechanism is still the same. If a mutant is very successful and can procreate and can pass its genes, that will lead to a radical change.   What is true is that evolution is a theory and no theory can be proven absolutely right. It's a elegant theory however and has not been proven wrong (yet?). In the chain of evidence there may be parts missing, but that seems very likely given the relative small numbers of fossiles there are.  

It's maybe a theory but you can prove hundreds of definite cases and the ones still going on now in modern day animals. So if you can line up a selection of animals and show over time how one species became another genetically and all the rest does this not prove evolution is a fact. We may not have the full story from a few living cells all the way to us but it must prove evolution works,

[Rosssco]

Actually, I take it all back. Statistically, there probably is a God. Although 'It' probably doesn't look like Santa..

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2330264.html

[ghand]

Actually, I take it all back. Statistically, there probably is a God. Although 'It' probably doesn't look like Santa..   http://www.huffingto..._b_2330264.html

Repetitive error correcting block codes as used in computing found in string theory equations? If I hadn't killed off all those brain cells over the years and paid more attention at school and had a clue what all thats about I could find it very interesting

[Rosssco]

 

Actually, I take it all back. Statistically, there probably is a God. Although 'It' probably doesn't look like Santa..   http://www.huffingto..._b_2330264.html

Repetitive error correcting block codes as used in computing found in string theory equations? If I hadn't killed off all those brain cells over the years and paid more attention at school and had a clue what all thats about I could find it very interesting

 

 

Basically, us, the universe and everything in it was created by a a higher intelligence, and in effect we are an artificial intelligence ourselves (although you then have redefine what "artificial" really is..).

 

Seems legit.

[ghand]

 

Actually, I take it all back. Statistically, there probably is a God. Although 'It' probably doesn't look like Santa..   http://www.huffingto..._b_2330264.html

Repetitive error correcting block codes as used in computing found in string theory equations? If I hadn't killed off all those brain cells over the years and paid more attention at school and had a clue what all thats about I could find it very interesting  

  Basically, us, the universe and everything in it was created by a a higher intelligence, and in effect we are an artificial intelligence ourselves (although you then have redefine what "artificial" really is..).   Seems legit.

Yes that's the jist of it, but the computer codes and what string theory equations are all about is proper mad stuff. Some guy came across the codes by accident hidden in the equations while studying the things, as you do

[alexb]

I hope we don't find out that we run on Windows 9

 

"the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time." Laws of physics that appear continuous?????? Sure they do, at our level. At atomic level, they're all discrete. Energy transfer can only be done in discrete packets (quanta). Forces act due to the exchange of discrete particles.

 

And advancing in steps of time. Sure, if you do a simulation on a digital computer, you have to slice time in small pieces. But who says we're running on a digital computer?

 

 

[Steve.i.am]

A simulator (and each simulator within a simulation) must use a computing platform utilising the fundamental building blocks (eg matter particles) within the current simulation (or real universe if its at the top level).

 

Now, to simulate 1 fundamental partical (or equivalent) will take very many fundamental particals in the simulator. (Eg look how big a computer with our current tech needs to be to simulate 1 tiny aspect of an atomic nucleus). So each simulated universe must be hugely smaller than the universe in which the simulator is running (be that simulated or real).

 

EG: You could probably create a ZX81 simulator on a 15 year old PC. And then simulate that old PC on a modern PC etc etc. if our universe is at the ZX81 level, and we're 1 million levels of simulation in, the real universe must be so mahoosive my brain really would blow up (virtually).

[casino]

Sooooooooooo. Whats God got to do to bring all you non believers round to my way of thinking?

[ghand]

Sooooooooooo. Whats God got to do to bring all you non believers round to my way of thinking?

The list is very very long, start with a cure for a close friends cancer and a lottery win for me

[Rosssco]

Sooooooooooo. Whats God got to do to bring all you non believers round to my way of thinking?

 

I think it will take far more than a probabalistic theory to convert non-believers to believers...

 

Even then I think we may be refering to different concepts of God. The probabalistic God probably either doesn't care for us, treats us just an experiment, or we are a random fluctuation in the simulation..

Edited by Rosssco, 10 January 2014 - 09:59 AM.

[ghand]

Sooooooooooo. Whats God got to do to bring all you non believers round to my way of thinking?

  I think it will take far more than a probabalistic theory to convert non-believers to believers...   Even then I think we may be refering to different concepts of God. The probabalistic God probably either doesn't care for us, treats us just an experiment, or we are a random fluctuation in the simulation..

Well it's pretty obvious he doesn't care fore us, that much we know as an absolute fact above anything else. You only need look at all the pain and suffering in the world to draw a line under that bit. Which brings me back full circle as to why I don't want to know one even if he or she exists, never mind worship the horrible thing.

[casino]

Sad old Casino, (52 in April) painted into a corner, singing the praises of his God who doesnt really care, to the heathen folk of .Org

 

Its a tough life . One thing though, enough of you are still hanging onto the coat tails of this thread

so you must be looking for some sort of answer to your many questions.

 

Sadly it aint me that can cure cancer. Thats up to you and the Almighty.

Sounds very much like the only chance you have is with the Almighty 

as all singing all dancing science aint managing to help.

 

I cant second guess the Almighty but you never know. He might be so moved at your change of heart He might just answer your

prayers.

 

Be better than any Lottery win wouldn't it?

 

 

Wish he'd sort my back out at the same time. Its murdering me for the 3rd day running.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ghand]

Sad old Casino, (52 in April) painted into a corner, singing the praises of his God who doesnt really care, to the heathen folk of .Org   Its a tough life . One thing though, enough of you are still hanging onto the coat tails of this thread so you must be looking for some sort of answer to your many questions.   Sadly it aint me that can cure cancer. Thats up to you and the Almighty. Sounds very much like the only chance you have is with the Almighty  as all singing all dancing science aint managing to help.   I cant second guess the Almighty but you never know. He might be so moved at your change of heart He might just answer your prayers.   Be better than any Lottery win wouldn't it?     Wish he'd sort my back out at the same time. Its murdering me for the 3rd day running.            

Ha ha hanging around just to chat with folk and see the different views knocking about definitely not to get to know your mate upstairs. I will say a short prayer for your back to get better, but if it does in the next few hours don't go saying its god as it's just nature doing its stuff

[ghand]

Sad old Casino, (52 in April) painted into a corner, singing the praises of his God who doesnt really care, to the heathen folk of .Org   Its a tough life . One thing though, enough of you are still hanging onto the coat tails of this thread so you must be looking for some sort of answer to your many questions.   Sadly it aint me that can cure cancer. Thats up to you and the Almighty. Sounds very much like the only chance you have is with the Almighty  as all singing all dancing science aint managing to help.   I cant second guess the Almighty but you never know. He might be so moved at your change of heart He might just answer your prayers.   Be better than any Lottery win wouldn't it?     Wish he'd sort my back out at the same time. Its murdering me for the 3rd day running.            

Funny you should mention all singing all dancing science today (god works in mysterious ways ) not doing its job. The specialist told us this morning of a 10 to 14 hour operation followed by Hot chemotherapy, they put stuff in your body directly in the effected area while your opened up as against in your blood intravenously and it can drastically improve you for years or even cure. So everyone is more upbeat about things even though the operation is very risky. So good old science may yet work as it obviously will in the future as we learn more. I personally think I would risk the op as against hoping god is going to help out. we all know he wouldn't anyway