Random logic?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, it's not. It doesn't help explain anything to say the Big Bang was caused by something else because then the natural question is "what caused the cause?"

You are making statements about what God says and claims, but this assumes he exists, which is in doubt in this debate. The Bible may claim God claimed something, or a Christian may say G ...[text shortened]... of the Bible or the source of any coincidental experiences or strong emotions people might feel.

Because I am not convinced that the evidence for this claim is sufficient to make the claim. Now, it's possible that these things are true, but I don't see any reason to think they are true. Therefore I dispute, or question the truth of validity of; doubt that claim.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dispute

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know this? Has it ever been observed or is it simply a theory?

That which helps an organism survive and reproduce remains in the gene pool and proliferates. Those random events which are detrimental to this end disappear from the gene pool.

Take a look at the section of this website titled "Genetic Changes Over Generations":

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

An experiment in which a petri dish of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic is described. Those bacteria with the genes that make the bacteria immune or resistant to the antibiotic thrive under the new conditions, while those bacteria which are genetically vulnerable die off. Therefore, this part of my post has been observed. The TOE predicted the phenomenon of resistance to the chemicals we use to kill pests and disease causing organisms.

Happiness and pleasure as well as pain and suffering are consequences of those activities and qualities which work towards the end (or against, in the case of pain and suffering) of survival and reproduction in general.

Injuries and disease cause pain and suffering. Rejection from society causes pain and suffering. Being rejected by someone you love causes pain and suffering.

Being healthy causes happiness. Eating fatty, sugary, and sweet foods causes pleasure, and these things help people survive long enough to reproduce when food is scarce. Exercise brings feelings of pleasure.

This correlation has been observed.

Also observed have been where pleasure was detrimental and pain beneficial, but these examples as a whole are exceptions to the general rule. As the TOE predicts, organisms are not perfect and often in conflict with one another. For example, those drugs which humans did not synthesize and which cause pleasure are products of other life and used for the purposes of that life. Human synthesis of drugs helps the drug makers by giving them wealth even when it causes problems for the users.

As logic helps me attain that which brings happiness and avoids pain, I trust it.

Logic has helped me be at peace with death. It helps me attain the goals I set for myself. It explains nature exceptionally well. Technology is a result of logic, and it's given a tremendous amount of humanity enough to eat, protection from natural disasters and enemies, etc such that more people can reproduce and survive. The value of logic has been observed.

So what I described is a theory. The evidence for this theory has been very much observed. The answer to your second question is 'both'.

Originally posted by Darfius
Gibberish

These theories are extremely complex. Can a person properly describe quantum mechanics to someone who can't add? No. You need the background knowledge to understand these ideas. One cannot give justice to the entire scope of modern science in a post or two on an internet forum.

Maybe you could discuss what these theories have accomplished which is useful, frogstomp?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because I am not convinced that the evidence for this claim is sufficient to make the claim. Now, it's possible that these things are true, but I don't see any reason to think they are true. Therefore I dispute, or question the truth of validity of; doubt that claim.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dispute

LOL and I even left out the tough parts,

see what I get for being a nice and helpful guy in here ?

Would he rather see the differential geometry?

pain in the rear to do since the symbols arent readily available.

basicly its simple Forces ,,,not even god forces can interact with anything not in their universe and anything that exists outside it's universe is beyond its universe's event horizon meaning : in it's future.. and remains forever so.

I have come to a frightful conclusion : which is:

God cannot know if He was created or not! He's in the same boat we are !

So in my new found spirit of helpfulness ( does anybody still not believe in miracles?)
I shall propose a theory of his own creation for Him.

the universe consists an infinite series spheres inside spheres and none of these spheres interact in any way with any other sphere. however each sphere can create things opposite its own nature inside the closest sphere between it and the center sphere. as we are created by a being in the next higest sphere , god is created by whatever is in the next sphere,,,and so on. I plan on calling this newfound spiritual science theory : Devine Onion Rings.

Originally posted by frogstomp
LOL and I even left out the tough parts,

see what I get for being a nice and helpful guy in here ?

Would he rather see the differential geometry?

pain in the rear to do since the symbols arent readily available.

basicly its simple Forces ,,,not even god forces can interact with anything not ...[text shortened]... its universe's event horizon meaning : in it's future.. and remains forever so.

Honestly, this is nothing but gibberish. Science I can follow. Gibberish I cannot.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I have come to a frightful conclusion : which is:

God cannot know if He was created or not! He's in the same boat we are !

So in my new found spirit of helpfulness ( does anybody still not believe in miracles?)
I shall propose a theory of his own creation for Him.

the universe consists an infinite series sphe ...[text shortened]... on. I plan on calling this newfound spiritual science theory : Devine Onion Rings.

???

Originally posted by Nemesio
Translation: I can't argue this point because I don't understand it,
so I will cast this argument from the thread and my mind with a
wave of my hand and a dismissive and superior tone in my post.

Nemesio

No, he made no sense, Nemesio.

Originally posted by Darfius
No, he made no sense, Nemesio.

Isnt it funny that athousand young understood it was about quantum gravity right off and you in you supposed science knowege thinks its gibberish.

How silly you are.

Originally posted by Darfius
???

I do realize you wont be able to understand this one either. being wedded to the book of the bull god El as you are,,, so i suggest you dont bother to read it. without first taking taking a big dose of sedatives. because its essentially the same argument you try to pass off as science. only with one exception,, this covers it all ... yours dont.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Isnt it funny that athousand young understood it was about quantum gravity right off and you in you supposed science knowege thinks its gibberish.

How silly you are.

To be honest I didn't. I used quantum mechanics as an example of fairly advanced science I knew something about but which one needs a fair amount of pre-knowledge for.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Big Colliding Brane Theory or Ekpyrotic theory is the forefront of cosmology presently, Superstrings ya know.

We know the Universe was still expanding 8 billion years ago. we really cant know if it still is.

We know the Universe was still expanding 8 billion years ago. we really cant know if it still is.

You know that it was expanding 8 billion years ago? Were you there to see it happen? No. So how do you know it was expanding then?

You don't really know if it still is? But you are here today to make the observations? Yes. But you really can't know that it still is? Then how can you know for sure that it was expanding 8 billion years ago if you can't know if it still is expanding at present?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]We know the Universe was still expanding 8 billion years ago. we really cant know if it still is.

You know that it was expanding 8 billion years ago? Were you there to see it happen? No. So how do you know it was expanding then?

You don't really know if it still is? But you are here today to make the observations? Yes. But you ...[text shortened]... it was expanding 8 billion years ago if you can't know if it still is expanding at present?

[/b]

Do you know whether or not you had an ancestor 2000 years ago, dj?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
To be honest I didn't. I used quantum mechanics as an example of fairly advanced science I knew something about but which one needs a fair amount of pre-knowledge for.

ok ... any time stringtheory or any of the branes constructed in them are talked about ,,its from quantum theory , and is being tried because the prefered inflation model of the Universe has conceptual problems,,,

the main problem with string theory is the same problem that a cosmological event horizon causes for high-energy physics and that is " the definition of relativistic quantum theory in terms of the collection of scattering amplitudes called the S-Matrix " cant be resolved.

Ekpyrotic Theory is an effort to avoid that by using superstrings ( please dont ask the difference) to model a cyclical universe.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]That which helps an organism survive and reproduce remains in the gene pool and proliferates. Those random events which are detrimental to this end disappear from the gene pool.

Take a look at the section of this website titled "Genetic Changes Over Generations":

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

An experiment in ...[text shortened]... ce for this theory has been very much observed. The answer to your second question is 'both'.[/b]

The point I am trying to make is this:


"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

So are you tyring to say that everything is a product of evolutionary chance with exception to logic? That doesn't sound very logical to me.