| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> Asriel` I attempt to concieve of it, and it turns out impractical.
<1> hey everyone
<2> No, it just means you don't understand it
<0> No, YOU offer no evidence to backup your theory.
<3> haha
<1> hows everyone doing?
<3> it's like arguing with a retarded JBlitzen
<2> indeed
<4> yeah, that's what I thought peterhu
<4> life is older than 200million years on earth.
<4> probably over 1 billion years
<1> whats going on in here?
<2> If you have evidence of your position, just write it up and publish it
<4> sponges were around 650mil years ago.
<2> We'll all gladly read your revelations
<2> But if they boil down to "I don't understand/can't concieve of it", then you'll be laughed out deservedly
<3> http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/symbios.html
<0> Well you are supporting a theory. You can't concieve of evolution in that time span either, can you?
<3> not a bad *theory* on how a single cell organism might evolve into a multi-cell organism
<2> Sure I can
<0> Its like I claim A leads to B, but I am not sure how.
<0> If at all
<2> And once again,, evolution doesn't claim to offer the ultimate answer. Just the best answer we have
<1> lol drk
<1> cuz theres bugga here on earth
<2> It's a theory on the development of species, nothing more
<2> How one changes over time to better fit the environment
<0> Its a simple concept applied to the wrong phenomenon.
<2> Under what evidence?
<5> IRR^: You say it seems impossible for human to involve in such a short span of time, but then even if you play the lottery all your life, it's unlikely you'll even win a million bucks. But people do!
<2> You keep making these ***ertations with *no evidence* at all
<2> Other than "I think so"
<3> surely a diety capable of creating existence might also, hmm, "design" a process in which incredibly complex organisms are the result of random mutations over enough time
<3> nah
<0> evolution == lottery? lol
<2> So take it to a religion/phillosophy cl***, but keep it well out of science
<2> Because "I think so" is not science
<6> peterhu certainly seems likely
<5> Eh, evolution is an essentially random process.
<1> anyone heard of cheerleader nation
<1> on lifetime channel?
<0> And random processes create things like human beings.
<3> is that more or less incredible to you than an invisible diety that wills it so?
<0> Which create things like aeroplanes and VLSI
<3> i don't quite understand
<0> What invisible diety?
<3> the designer
<5> IRR^: Yes. As a matter of fact, the existence of Life is even mroe unlikely.
<5> Unlikely things happen, though.
<3> yeah, look at JBlitzen
<3> who knew humans could mate with mules
<5> Unlikeliness has yet to receive an SI units. =/
<0> You see, either you explain a gurzillion life forms, or you beleive in 1 God.
<3> just one? that's no fun
<5> Well, at least I don'T resort to a magic man in the sky to explain them.
<2> As soon as you admit "A wizard did it", science collaspses
<0> The latter is a much much more managable theory.
<0> And well defended. Emperically.
<2> Anything you don't like? "A wizard did it"?
<3> managable to a retarded JBlitzen, perhaps
<2> theory not holding up? "The wizard made it that way
<4> whoa
<4> empirical evidence of God?
<4> where?
<2> Give us your evidence, or shut the hell up
<5> Hehe.
<5> Jesus, Noidea. Jesus is empirical evidence of God.
<1> march 12th, on lifetime
<2> Now, if we want to turn this into a religious discussion, I'll quite happily take off my science hat and talk religion
<2> and what you're discussing is not science
<3> Asriel`, it's never been about science to this guy
<2> Nor can it be used to dismiss scientific argument
<3> it's strictly about the inability to cope with with unknown
<2> I know. He just needs to be reminded of the borders
<0> Ok, so you want empirical evidence?
<3> there isn't a human alive that wouldn't LOVE epirical evidence of god
<0> peterhu good. consider then an atom.
<3> +m
<0> What is it made of?
<3> sub-atomic particles?
<3> quarks, guons, et?
<6> apparnetly protrons, neutrons, electrons
<0> Electrons, protons and nutrons and other ***orted stuff.
<3> +l
<3> oh
<0> We'll get to the sub sub..
<3> i jumped ahead, sorry
<6> gluons
<0> What is a neutron made of?
<0> quarks
<3> your argument is still flawed
<0> What are quarks made of?
<6> proton and electron, apparently
<2> We don't know, yet. Something
<6> since a neutron can "decay" into those
<0> And whats below that something, if that something exists at all.
<0> vawjrwrk correct
<0> Where is your evolution now?
<3> huh?
<0> The initial cause?
<5> ... What?
<0> The kernel of all things
<3> i recant my previous statement
<3> that doesn't cl***ify as an argument
<2> Evolution doesn't purport to explain subatomic physics. Anymore than gravity explains the development of life
<0> Yes it doesn't.
<2> Your argument is non sensicle
<0> This cl***ifies as a question.
<0> That no one can answer here.
<6> unanswerable questions abound, so??
<0> "<2> Your argument is non sensicle" <<-- now thats a good argument :P
<3> i am unaware of any scientific attempt to explain existence
<2> And because we can't answer a question, the answer is "A wizard did it"?
<6> evolution is orthogonal to particle physics
<0> Asriel` what will be your answer?
<2> That's not an argument, that's just a statement IRR
<0> vawjrwrk you cannot ignore particle physics while explaining evolution.
<2> My scientific answer? I don't know, I've not considered it and am not qualified to give a scientific argument
<6> of course I can
<0> Just as you can't ignore it while explaining chemistry.
<2> 500 years ago, gravity was unknown. The answer was "Because god wants things to stay down"
<6> just like we ignore it when we discuss orbital mechanics, and for the same reasons
<2> Was that the answer? Hell no
<3> see my previous statement of people unable to cope with the unknown
<2> Just because we can't answer something does not mean a scientific answer is "A wizard did it". It just means, we have an open question
<3> that's strictly what we have here
<3> to believe in a god is one thing
<3> to use god to explain the unknown is an entirely different thing
<5> IRR^: You can,t bring scientific questions to a metaphysical level.
<2> Now, if we want to discuss philosophy and religion, we can bring in deities
<0> I am seeing a lot of "Just because we can't"s
<4> ahhh, a first cause argument IRR^?
<2> and my personal answer, in those terms, is yes, "God" created stuff. But it's not science, not at all
<4> there must be a God, because something must have created everything
<0> Noidea yes, but differently argued
<4> because everything has to be created from something?
<3> there are things science inherently cannot explain, questions which you want answered, and you see that as a failing of science
<3> and that's just simply silly
<6> Noidea but sutdies have shown that "nothing" is unstable
<0> I don't know if we can end this discussion, but can I ***ume that my arguments made any impact upon anyone?
<3> doubtful
<2> Not at all
<4> No
<4> what argument?
<3> as for the most part you were incoherent
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
Chatsite+english
ukpoofs
#asm
cum dau g-line
silverchair clipsal torrent
otep god is a gun
#linux
#networking
pircbot jframe
#php
|
|