Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
5 registered members (AndrewAMD, monk12, TipmyPip, Quad, aliswee), 1,029 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 51 of 54 1 2 49 50 51 52 53 54
Re: Science vs Wack Jobs [Re: PHeMoX] #69271
09/14/07 10:13
09/14/07 10:13
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
A
Arathas Offline
Newbie
Arathas  Offline
Newbie
A

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Quote:


when it comes to actually being born, we were all winners




That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ...

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs [Re: Arathas] #207824
05/22/08 14:02
05/22/08 14:02
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:
That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ... smirk


There definitely could have been changes, but yeah I guess we have to learn to live with it without going postal. wink

Sometimes children are pretty much predestined to not become very smart because both their parents weren't very smart or think of situations like children born from incestuous relationships and so on. Still, it's in neither case guaranteed that the children inevitably will become stupid.

By the way, for those people that still demand half-monkeys, fish-people and what not for proof of evolution, I'd recommend reading; Shubin's "Your inner fish". It was written in 2008 and is both interesting and a good read.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #210700
06/12/08 11:59
06/12/08 11:59
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 379
Flevoland, 5 meters under wate...
Roel Offline
Senior Member
Roel  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 379
Flevoland, 5 meters under wate...
creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old, because when the bible says the word day, the think it is a real day(I DONT EXACTLY KNOW HOW IT IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH,I ONLY KNOW ABOUT THE DUTCH BIBLE)

This is not true.
There is also written that a day can be 1000 years.
Another important thing is that this is a issue of translation the bible.
In the original language, the word day can mean a Time period, even a long time.

Sorry for my bad english!


Check out the throwing game here: The throwing game
What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far [Re: PHeMoX] #210701
06/12/08 12:00
06/12/08 12:00
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
I
Impaler Offline
Member
Impaler  Offline
Member
I

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
I am impressed that this thread has gone so far; it's good for people to actually think about these issues rather than accept the standard belief without thinking about it.

First of all, there are a huge number of reasons why life could not have originated on earth by natural occurrences.

1.) The Urey-Miller experiment: This experiment was very strong evidence against evolution 50 years ago, but is still being quoted in text books today as the origin of life.
The aim of the experiment was to be able to create extremely simple amino acids from a mixture of gases and an electrical spark, supposedly similar to the atmosphere of a "Primitive earth". The only problem is that to create these simple acids, hydrogen must be present in the mixture. Is there any hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere, where there happens to be lightning? I don't think so. Being the lightest existing element, it will be sitting on top of all those other gases, on the edge of space.

2.)Lets just pretend that there is hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere and an amino acid happens to form. What then? There are 22 amino acids used to make proteins in a living cell, and this experiment managed to produce two or three. A protein, by the way, is nothing compared to a cell. It is a building block of cell components, and many, many cell components must make up a single cell. DNA is totally out of the question: You need this monster to even make proteins, and it is composed of tens to hundreds of millions of nucleotides, all in the glitch free "programming" to construct the basic components of a cell. No matter how hard for how long you try, you will never arrive at DNA by chance with a couple of amino acids.

3.) The flagellum on a bacterium is composed of 50 parts that work together like an electric motor: if just one of them is out of place, the bacteria will not have propulsion. This in itself is massive proof against evolution: if this device was built up by natural selection, how was a non-functioning appendage on the back of the bacterium favoured by natural selection over the “millions of years” that it took to perfect it? Wouldn’t these bacteria have the disadvantage of extra drag and weight that would impair the cell, and cause it to die? Also, the flagellum’s “motor” is made up of parts that are all different. The cell wasn’t manufacturing these parts by chance, they were clearly part of a greater intelligence.

4.) The bombardier beetle: This is probably an overused example, but it is an essential fact: The bombardier beetle could not have evolved it’s combination of reactive chemicals without destroying itself; not only are there two separated reactive chemicals within it’s body, but it also has suppressant chemicals to stop these reactants from blowing it up. How all these could have possibly evolved at any early advantage to the organism is anybody’s guess.

I can quote more to you if you want them, but right now I have just finished my final exams and don’t have much motivation to do more essay writing. And by the way, if the 6000 years belief is mere sentimentalism, what does that make evolution? An attempt to escape from God, at the expense of rational thinking.

Now you can all tell me why I'm wrong smile

Last edited by Impaler; 06/12/08 13:45.

Murphey's Law:
<< if anything can go wrong, it will >>

(Murphey was an optimist).
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Matt_Aufderheide] #210706
06/12/08 12:08
06/12/08 12:08
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 379
Flevoland, 5 meters under wate...
Roel Offline
Senior Member
Roel  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 379
Flevoland, 5 meters under wate...
That are real strong arguments

In that experiment you talked about, when it would happen in reality, where would the sceintists be to add all the elements, electricity, light etc?

Last edited by Roel; 06/12/08 12:11.

Check out the throwing game here: The throwing game
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Roel] #210707
06/12/08 12:09
06/12/08 12:09
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
I
Impaler Offline
Member
Impaler  Offline
Member
I

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
Roel,
I believe that the Hebrew term used in Genesis can only be interpreted as a literal day, and there is very little point in expanding that by multiples of 1000; If God can create the universe in 1000 X 6 days, why not make it six?
He is infinitely powerful...so why should we assume that he took such a long time? If you believe that God exists and created the Universe, you might as well take His Word for it.

but I guess we're not supposed to talk about the bible, hey? grin

Last edited by Impaler; 06/12/08 12:10.

Murphey's Law:
<< if anything can go wrong, it will >>

(Murphey was an optimist).
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Impaler] #210744
06/12/08 15:29
06/12/08 15:29
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
Lukas Offline

Programmer
Lukas  Offline

Programmer

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
Bible says that god created the plants before he created the sun. If that was true, all plants would be dead and without plants we would be dead. That is a much stronger argument than speculations that amino acids couldn't be orginated by natural occurrences, Impaler.
If that doesn't convince you, maybe because you think that it needn't be like the Bible says, then just look at human anatomy. We have remains of a tail!

I hate creatonism!

Re: Science and Creation [Re: Lukas] #210796
06/12/08 22:42
06/12/08 22:42
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
what about right in the beginning: "let there be light!"? God was illuminating everything before He began the rest of the creation.

plants needn't die.

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Lukas] #210807
06/13/08 01:06
06/13/08 01:06
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
I
Impaler Offline
Member
Impaler  Offline
Member
I

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 128
Papua New Guinea
Lukas,
the coccyx is far from being a "vestigial tail". It is clear evidence for design: not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus, the largest muscle in the body), but it also provides cushioning when you sit down. Without a cocyyx, you would not even be able to defecate. Do you expect the spinal column to be cut straight off at the sacrum? No, it must taper down to a point to allow maximum strength of conection to the pelvis while maximizing space to be used by the internal organs.

Quote:

I hate creatonism!


Many people have this attitude towards creationism, because it implies that there is a God. To some, this is so frightening that they turn to evolution for answers. Denying God's existence doesn't make Him any less real, and I can't imagine it would make Him that happy, either.


Murphey's Law:
<< if anything can go wrong, it will >>

(Murphey was an optimist).
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Impaler] #210810
06/13/08 02:05
06/13/08 02:05
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:
but it also provides cushioning when you sit down.
ya, it actually gives in as the weight is applied to it, and acts as a shock absorber.

Quote:
not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus
gluteus maximus, levator ani, coccygeus are the ones I know of,but there probably is more, you need the last two muscles in order to defecate.

Page 51 of 54 1 2 49 50 51 52 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1