• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

*** Science Or God? ***

Science or God?


  • Total voters
    516

karnivore

in your face..
am too lazy to write essays
HE HE HE.......i understand.

T159 said:
I prefer my instincts. Try it, it never fails
Faith and evidence are a term too vague to believe, but it works within assumptions and majority approach
If you want to explore then start from yourself.
I prefer my instincts too. But it seems our instincts follow 2 separate sets of rules. Yes, glass can be half filled or half empty. I am the sort who likes to see the former.

[naughty]
Hey....i am too old to explore myself
[/naughty]

T159 said:
oh and for the matter of unknown, we are seeking out other planets whereas we don't know what lies beneath Oceans
Running the risk of being limited by language and misinterpreting you, those two are two separate branches of research. When you say "we" it gives the impression than marine researchers are researching outer space as well.
 

ico

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is my 1st post in the this thread....:D So, don't get hard on me straight away....

Science can't give the answers of everything but the answer for those things whose answers Science can't give IS NOT GOD......[It will give one day, but at the moment, it hasn't found any answer]

Well, thousands of years ago, when humans were mercilessly killed by animals for food, Wasn't God there to protect us that time?? So, when humans got their brain developed and started to think like a **human**, (when could it be......around 10-12K years ago), they created this imaginary thing called GOD.....an answer for those things, which they couldn't answer.......
 

karnivore

in your face..
Well, according to this NY Times article, trying to correct misinformation may actually have an opposite effect and strengthen the lie itself.
NY Times said:
Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true...Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger.
So may be, I should really stop posting here. But the provocation is tooooo tempting.
 

mediator

Technomancer
karnivore said:
Thats medaiatorspeak for, "I have once again put both my feet in my loud mouth, this time upto the knee, and I don't know how to get those out"
We have seen that already in hypnotism thread where the funny materialist gives his opinon n says "case explored"! :)

karnivore said:
Errr.....weren't you supposed to show me "wateva fossils", that "HAVE BEEN FOUND", which "do not seem to confirm" to prediction. Instead, what you have done is point at the missing links, which are fossils, that HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND. How dumb can that answer be.
The dumbness arises when the person cannot understand the question in the first place. I have been stressing on "gradually" continously, but it seems it overflows in ur hollow upper shell filled with dark <waveta> which is leading to faster expansion. :oops:

karnivore said:
I meant, that "wateva fossils" that have been found, confirm to the predictions, which are based on accurate understanding of evolution, and to which the latest find, Ventastega, confirmed. Nobody claims that all fossil records are complete. Nobody claims that all missing links have been linked up. But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.
The line in bold is exactly my point of view that adds to my question! But it seems u r dodging the other arguments against evolutionary theory. Why?


karnivore said:
And that E.Coli experiment is not evolution because..........

Oh silly me, because, those bacteria did not turn into a bunch of hippos.
Now how exactly we have an ancestor from the sea? That E.Coli experiment only shows how the bacteria adapts to the surrounding and yea it didn't turns into a hippo or even the generations of it didn't turn into one! How did we get a hippo then?

karnivore said:
Yes keep your questions as vague as possible. Are you referring to beginning of life itself or the diversity of life. If it is the beginning of life you are referring to, then the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" is NOT an explanation for the biginning of life, but an explanation of how life has evolved or is still evolving. If it is the diversity you are talking, then there are plenty of reasons, primary of which is natural selection. Instead of making snide remarks, read those links, particularly TalkOrigin. You will find those answers. You can refer to any book by Richard Dawkins, as well, if you are willing to learn, or you can simply ask random questions picked from creationist s(h)ites.
Since u mentioned the "beginning of life" then that also raises a very fundamental question. "What filled life in lifeless particles after all we r all made up of electrons, protons, neutrons?". And yea, I know evolution doesn't explains bt beginning of life. Thanx for reminding bt the origin also. :)


I think my questions are cracking ur brain walls!
U think I'm playing an apologist for the creationists and then the materialists brigade seems to be getting different interpretations of evolution. Gets ur concepts straight. If u can't answer then simply say so! :)


karnivore said:
PSSST......don't tell anyone. But I have a theory where those creatures came from. They were carried in a large douche bag, by a super giant storkosorous, all the way from a black hole in the 3rd Universe, spinning like a top on someone's commode.
Instead of making expert opinions, remarks, mocking other's beliefs and practising for great INDIAN LAUGHTER CHALLENGE publicly, u can discuss science in this relevant thread. Its not for trolling u know!


karnivore said:
Enlightenment is something that has a different meaning in mediotorland. Nobody claims that theory of Big Bang is perfect from "P" to "T". The theory has its problems, least of which is the Bang itself. Inflation theory does explain homogeneity, but does a lousy job with background microwave radiation. And even if Inflation theory is right, it would still need a CREATOR, which will further need to be CREATED.......and Mr Occam will be more than glad to shave off that creator with his favourite razor.

What happened before Big Bang cannot be explained by science. Because, data regarding whatever existed before Big Bang, would be lost with Big Bang. And unlike pseudoscience, science needs raw data to work on. No data, no science and hence no answer. Linde correctly calls these questions to be philosophical, cause he knows better than you, that no science can explain those questions. You, on the other hand, still don't get it and expect science to answer those questions.
U think I don't know that or were u blinded by arrogance when I said the same thing in the past that evidence for t=0 is not there?? Guess I shud raise the font size to make it look better, may be u wud understand better that ways? :oops:


karnivore said:
First you seek philosophy in evolution, which is science all the way, and then look for science to answer philosophical questions. "Dumb" is a word, that does not even come close to describe your answers
LOL, actually yes its not close, coz what u wrote is how science progresses and thats why I asked u to understand how science progresses! U don't even understand what u talk of. :D


karnivore said:
And no, LHC will not create a universe in lab, but will create the physics that existed immediately after the Bang. And if that physics is created in accordance to the prediction, it will be the second direct evidence of the Bang, after microwave radiation, and Linde et al, will have to put their *bleep* back into their pants. Frankly, I can't wait to see their faces.
mediator said:
So with LHC, I think we r "creating" a Universe like situation, with some "external energy". Don't u think so?
Where did I say, it will create "Universe" in LAB? LOL, comprehension is something I asked u to improve on long time ago.
"Creating Universe" is not equal to creating "Universe like situation". Its "testability" that u whine n say "will happen" is simply "universe like situation"! Science has not been able to explain Universe itself and so my use of the term "universe like situation"!! But ur use of terms like "creating Universe" is rather a verification that u don't even understand the theories and stuff bt Universe!! Did the Big Bang model get an "external energy" to start on? We r only creatin a model, n so was the original model also "created"? But I wish to see it "self sustain". Sure we will learn a lot from it, but I guess I rather not talk on LHC that is cracking ur brains up.

And sure what remains to be seen can't be predicted. Why speculate already? Its not bt their faces as if they will change, as true scientists are not arrogant like u, but rather "flexible".


karnivore said:
And yes those final words of Mr Linde are same as a crackpot, who expects the whole of science to change its paradigm just to accommodate his figment of imagination, and who for some unknown reason,
does not get his ideas peer-reviewed. (OOOOH, that dreaded word)

It may provoke thought in you.....it only provokes shite in us. Too bad.
Another sample that fills the already overflowing pot that marks ur arrogance and behaviour that mocks others who questions ur belief. But u on the other hand like to mock everything else that is incompatible with ur belief!


karnivore said:
mediator said:
A few here say that "science can explain everything"
Ahem....misrepresenting my quotes again. Naughty, naughty.
karnivore said:
Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.
karnivore said:
No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.
mediator said:
A few here say that "science can explain everything". Therefore u have my questions! Some say " wateva can be explained is science", so shud we narrow ourself to that "wateva" and neglect everything else?
Sorry to burst the bubble gain, but Take ur pick. Both r correct! :D
It seems its a funny new tactic of urs to quote me "partially" thinking I might forget my own words. It seems u have taken an oath to seriously help me develop 8 pack abs.


karnivore said:
So, even you are ignorant about the practice that you are rooting for. Shouldn't you be ashamed of yourself that you still continue to ask us to learn about things which even you, yourself have no clue of. When, your are yourself not informed enough, how can you even judge, if we are wrong or not ? Somking pot, again ? So stop being a lousy hypocrite.

Firstly, on this forum, you are the only one who is debating stubbornly in favour of something, which, by your own admission, you are not aware of. So the questions were directed at you. Secondly, how in the hell do you know that I have not asked those questions to a homeopath, on any homeoPATHETIC forum. Thirdly, stop BSing, take a lesson in MOOOOOeopathy, come back and then continue debating. Till then don't spill your brains all over the thread.
Actually I can continue my journey to make u a full-fledged literate who can then actually pass some aptitude test also. But I don't know how to teach arrogant little whiners who only mock the stuff they don't want to learn and believe and already remark it as "crap/pink unicorn/garbage/wtf" wateva! First u whine bt "random n double blind trials". Then I teach u that homeopathy doesn't work that way. U mock it from beginning, that u did even after that. U know teachers actually call the parents of such children and make them punish and then they cry, weep, lurk and then moan and finally they turn violent and destroy the society. :oops:

BTW, I don't even observe if I'm alone or have a gang in favour of my arguments. EVEn if all the digitians were here to start debating against me that would actually increase my experience and fun exponentially! And if u had actually asked for those questions on a homeopathic forum, then u wudn't have even babbled bt "random n double blind trials"! Can u quit lying....ever?




karnivore said:
It is irrelevant if you are debating in favour of creationists or not, but what is indeed relevant is that you are using the same arguments that those morons use to prove that GOD is the answer to all. Comments like, "The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence." or "They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created." are not criticism of evolution, but arguments in favour of GOD theory. And people who confuse "entropy theory" with "evolution" or expect amoeba to turn to man, are anything but scientists .You are just turning out to be a fine specimen of preposterus ludicrus (See picture above, post#631)
Abusing those who believe in GOD only shows how much frustrated u r. The repeated usage of acronym "wtf" in this fine post of urs confirms the matter that ur brain is literally losing its already lurking benevolence n stable behaviour too. Those who already question like "Where all of it came from" are only curious to know it. They might be theists and might not be as it is a very philosophical question. If Universe really had a beginning, then what about its end? If there is no end, then how can u say with sureity that it began? Since we don't have evidence, it remains mysterious that it does! You can whine as much as u want. But u cannot ignore the truth. :)



AGAIN, as Anderi Linde said...
Andrei said:
I don't entirely think of this possibility as a joke. Even if something seems counterintuitive, you must be honest and follow the thought line and not be influenced by the common point of view. If you agree with everything everybody else thinks, you never move.



PS : I think u can't really answer my questions, save make a few frustrated remarks and abuse theists. So it wud be wise to stop as stopping is better than witnessing remarks and abuses against other's beliefs. What say? If u wanna continue, then I have no objection!! :)
 
Last edited:

karnivore

in your face..
mediator said:
..practising for great INDIAN LAUGHTER CHALLENGE publicly..
My chances of winning the challenge are indeed going up with every single post of yours. All i have to do is read your posts aloud......it will be cake walk. So keep posting and adding to my collection.

BTW, thanks for your contribution.
mediator said:
It seems u have taken an oath to seriously help me develop 8 pack abs.
That would be Rs 1000 for an ab. I will have it in cash, in Rs 100 bill. Thank You very much.
mediator said:
U know teachers actually call the parents of such children and make them punish and then they cry, weep, lurk and then moan and finally they turn violent and destroy the society.
Come on. We are not interested in your life story. But if you insist.......ok......we are all ears......go on.....then what happened ? Did they put you in jail ? Did they do that thing they do with inmates ? Is that the reason why your *bleep* is numb and doesn't heart when *bleep*.
----------------------------------------------------------
Edited To Add:

mediator said:
We have seen that already in hypnotism thread where the funny materialist gives his opinon n says "case explored"!
Haven’t we. Actually that was the thread, that made me think, if you would need to re-enroll yourself to a kindergarten or not. Now I am convinced, that you do.
mediator said:
The dumbness arises when the person cannot understand the question in the first place. I have been stressing on "gradually" continuously…
Well lets refresh your memory. I had earlier [post#631] commented, “The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution.” Your reply [post#634] was a typical denial, “"wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm.” My reply [post#636] to that was, “And which fossil do not seem to confirm……Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.” You come back [post#637] with your typical strawman, “Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete"…” Instead of giving me examples of fossils, that do not seem to confirm, you ingeniously, came back with “missing link” arguments, which was NEVER my position, to begin with. My position was that fossils that we have been able to unearth, DO CONFIRM to the predictions of evolution theory. You first denied that position, and when realized that your frantic last moment googling would not yield any such fossil, you swiftly changed your stance and started arguing about “missing link”. “Missing link” was never the bone of contention.

That, my dear friend, is dumb strawman, and one more confirmation that you are indeed the best specimen of PREPOSTERUS LUDICRUS.
mediator said:
karnivore said:
….Nobody claims that all fossil records are complete. Nobody claims that all missing links have been linked up. But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.
The line in bold is exactly my point of view that adds to my question!
Ahem……what about this piece of rider, “But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.”
mediator said:
But it seems u r dodging the other arguments against evolutionary theory. Why?
I, of course, do not have to respond to every single idiotic arguments that every douche bag, puts up. A creationist argument is so lame, that those are not even arguments. Only if you had taken the time to visit those links, or use Google - your friend turned foe - you would have found your answers. But since you have pushed it to limits, well here you go:

11 claims of creationists - BUSTED (Ouch……that’s gonna leave a mark)

[Don’t you hate it when that happens. But here’s a business proposition for you. Quickly learn to scrape those eggs off your face. You can start a Fast Food Centre in no time]
mediator said:
Now how exactly we have an ancestor from the sea? That E.Coli experiment only shows how the bacteria adapts to the surrounding and yea it didn't turns into a hippo or even the generations of it didn't turn into one! How did we get a hippo then?
How exactly we have an ancestor from the sea or for that matter, how did we get hippo ? Well we were all delivered in a giant tote bag, carried by my pet storkosorous. Prove me wrong.

Those bacteria did not just adapt, they evolved through genetic mutation. With such weak understanding of evolution, why do you even bother to open your loud mouth and constantly put your foot in your mouth. Or is it that you were born with your feet in your mouth. Lord “ruler of five spaces” knows best.
mediator said:
Sorry to burst the bubble gain, but Take ur pick. Both r correct!
It seems its a funny new tactic of urs to quote me "partially" thinking I might forget my own words.
I don’t have your habit of selectively misquoting and twisting it for argument’s sake. I have quoted that first part [“A few here say that "science can explain everything"]because, I did say something like that, but with a rider and an explanation. I have never said the second part [“Some say " wateva can be explained is science"], neither did any of my comments imply that. So quoting that part was irrelevant. But if you mean that, “But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.” means “wateva can be explained is science”, then I have a pocketful of pity for you. Come kiddo, get it before I run out of stock.

*clink* *clank* *bang*……….oh, those are sounds of me, rebuilding my bubble. Don’t bother.
mediator said:
..u wudn't have even babbled bt "random n double blind trials"..
Now now. Should I start posting those homeoPATHETIC trials, that were randomized and double-blinded and yielded positive results and posted in some of your homeoPATHETIC forums as a “Gotcha”. [Just to deny you the joy of misquoting the above, let me also put a rider. Those trials, when repeated with tighter control, never got past that placebo barrier. The word to be noted here is “REPEATED”.]
mediator said:
I think my questions are cracking ur brain walls!
Naaa………everytime I read your posts my brain goes into a temporary cryogenic freeze. Then when I get out of this thread, my brain reboots.
mediator said:
U think I'm playing an apologist for the creationists….
I don’t think so, I know so.
mediator said:
U think I don't know that or were u blinded by arrogance when I said the same thing in the past that evidence for t=0 is not there?? Guess I shud raise the font size to make it look better, may be u wud understand better that ways?
Yes you did say that, but, as usual, used this lack of pre-bang data to mock the theory of BB, not being able to distinguish that lack of pre-bang data and existence of post-bang data are on two different planes. It is a fine example of gobbledygook. You can raise the font size, but that will put your folly - which lay hidden in the sea of words - into too much focus.
mediator said:
Where did I say, it will create "Universe" in LAB? LOL, comprehension is something I asked u to improve on long time ago.
No, you did not say that, and when I was replying I had Linde on mind.
mediator said:
"Creating Universe" is not equal to creating "Universe like situation". Its "testability" that u whine n say "will happen" is simply "universe like situation"! Science has not been able to explain Universe itself and so my use of the term "universe like situation"!! But ur use of terms like "creating Universe" is rather a verification that u don't even understand the theories and stuff bt Universe!! Did the Big Bang model get an "external energy" to start on? We r only creatin a model, n so was the original model also "created"? But I wish to see it "self sustain". Sure we will learn a lot from it, but I guess I rather not talk on LHC that is cracking ur brains up.
Nevertheless, it will still not create Universe like situation. It will simply create the physics that might have existed immediately after the bang. And what I said was, that, if it is able to recreate that physics, then it will be the proof of BB, not that any self-respecting scientist doubt that. However, as science is all about testability, it will be giant step in that direction and probably silence some perpetual whiners.

Also, you did not reply about why Linde’s model will work, specially when his model is entirely based on CREATOR hypothesis.

[Strange, that you find a simpler explanation of start of universe, perverse, but consider the CREATOR hypothesis to have food for thought. I understand that position though. You have so much committed yourself into quackery, that even though you can see the holes in these ridiculous theories, you can’t step back.]

Question time (Don't be scared, its not about MOOOeopathy)
mediator said:
…it seems it overflows in ur hollow upper shell filled with dark <waveta>…
How can something be HOLLOW and FILLED at the same time ? Again contradicting yourself in the same sentence ? Told you, not to smoke pot. It will kill all the butterflies that you are harvesting inside your skull.

PS: I have many more eggs in my basket.What say? If u wanna continue, then I have no objection!!”
 
Last edited:

mediator

Technomancer
karnivore said:
Well lets refresh your memory. I had earlier [post#631] commented, “The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution.” Your reply [post#634] was a typical denial, “"wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm.” My reply [post#636] to that was, “And which fossil do not seem to confirm……Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.” You come back [post#637] with your typical strawman, “Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete"…” Instead of giving me examples of fossils, that do not seem to confirm, you ingeniously, came back with “missing link” arguments, which was NEVER my position, to begin with. My position was that fossils that we have been able to unearth, DO CONFIRM to the predictions of evolution theory. You first denied that position, and when realized that your frantic last moment googling would not yield any such fossil, you swiftly changed your stance and started arguing about “missing link”. “Missing link” was never the bone of contention.
U can save ur time on digging the past of what I said, and then what u said, if u simply even "try" to "comprehend" of what I said. Rise from sea to land and so on...."gradually"! I alread ysaid fossils of each n every stage and that obviously and simply means the "complete" fossil records!



karnivore said:
Ahem……what about this piece of rider, “But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.”
It seems u don't understand what "gradually" means. Does the example of "tetrapods" show the fossils of the body with limbs that evolved "gradually"? That means if one the species had limbs a few centimetre of size in a fully grown one, then the next generation having longer limbs i.e limbs, wings, fins of the fully grown ones evolve n grow a little by little! And that goes for all the species and hence my reference to "sea to land","land to air" and stress on the word "gradually".



karnivore said:
I, of course, do not have to respond to every single idiotic arguments that every douche bag, puts up. A creationist argument is so lame, that those are not even arguments. Only if you had taken the time to visit those links, or use Google - your friend turned foe - you would have found your answers. But since you have pushed it to limits, well here you go:

11 claims of creationists - BUSTED (Ouch……that’s gonna leave a mark)

[Don’t you hate it when that happens. But here’s a business proposition for you. Quickly learn to scrape those eggs off your face. You can start a Fast Food Centre in no time]
If u can call other's arguments lame and wateva u can think of, then u shud make them realize also why its lame! Its seems the battle between creationists and evolutionists is never ending. SO, u can have some rest as I read those articles! I admire ur "keyboard commando" "service". :D


karnivore said:
mediator said:
Now how exactly we have an ancestor from the sea? That E.Coli experiment only shows how the bacteria adapts to the surrounding and yea it didn't turns into a hippo or even the generations of it didn't turn into one! How did we get a hippo then?
How exactly we have an ancestor from the sea or for that matter, how did we get hippo ? Well we were all delivered in a giant tote bag, carried by my pet storkosorous. Prove me wrong.

Those bacteria did not just adapt, they evolved through genetic mutation. With such weak understanding of evolution, why do you even bother to open your loud mouth and constantly put your foot in your mouth. Or is it that you were born with your feet in your mouth. Lord “ruler of five spaces” knows best.
Ofcors, it mutates also. When did I say it "only" adapts?? How childish! Now don't misunderstand that by "bacteria" I'm refering to one bacteria but "generations" of it! U still didn't anwser how did we get a hippo then if its not like a ladder?


karnivore said:
I don’t have your habit of selectively misquoting and twisting it for argument’s sake. I have quoted that first part [“A few here say that "science can explain everything"]because, I did say something like that, but with a rider and an explanation. I have never said the second part [“Some say " wateva can be explained is science"], neither did any of my comments imply that. So quoting that part was irrelevant. But if you mean that, “But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.” means “wateva can be explained is science”, then I have a pocketful of pity for you. Come kiddo, get it before I run out of stock.

*clink* *clank* *bang*……….oh, those are sounds of me, rebuilding my bubble. Don’t bother.
Like I said, can u quit whining? :oops:


karnivore said:
Now now. Should I start posting those homeoPATHETIC trials, that were randomized and double-blinded and yielded positive results and posted in some of your homeoPATHETIC forums as a “Gotcha”. [Just to deny you the joy of misquoting the above, let me also put a rider. Those trials, when repeated with tighter control, never got past that placebo barrier. The word to be noted here is “REPEATED”.]
I'm not interested in 'gotcha', but the correct way of testing homeopathy and thats obviously not "random and double blinded trials"!


karnivore said:
Yes you did say that, but, as usual, used this lack of pre-bang data to mock the theory of BB, not being able to distinguish that lack of pre-bang data and existence of post-bang data are on two different planes. It is a fine example of gobbledygook. You can raise the font size, but that will put your folly - which lay hidden in the sea of words - into too much focus.
Criticising a theory is not called mocking. But labelling something as "pink unicorns/garbage/crap/wtf" is certainly called mocking!! So simply saying, we don't have any evidence for t=0, but we r simply theorizing something that cannot be marked as a fact!!


karnivore said:
Nevertheless, it will still not create Universe like situation. It will simply create the physics that might have existed immediately after the bang. And what I said was, that, if it is able to recreate that physics, then it will be the proof of BB, not that any self-respecting scientist doubt that. However, as science is all about testability, it will be giant step in that direction and probably silence some perpetual whiners.
Sure what "will" happen will be seen. Why speculate? We r "creating" a model with the aid of "external energy". Was the original model as such? Yes or no? On one hand u r rejecting a "creation theory" and on other fervently advocatig LHC i.e a model that will be created with the aid of "external energy", something and someone?? I'M not advocating creation theory, but just wondering bt the irony here! :)
U need to understand that we need to know what happened at t=0, what was there and what was before!


karnivore said:
Also, you did not reply about why Linde’s model will work, specially when his model is entirely based on CREATOR hypothesis.
I think we r discussing BIG BANG at the moment or u forgot?


karnivore said:
[Strange, that you find a simpler explanation of start of universe, perverse, but consider the CREATOR hypothesis to have food for thought. I understand that position though. You have so much committed yourself into quackery, that even though you can see the holes in these ridiculous theories, you can’t step back.]
Like I said, u can whine as much as u want!

karnivore said:
How can something be HOLLOW and FILLED at the same time ? Again contradicting yourself in the same sentence ? Told you, not to smoke pot. It will kill all the butterflies that you are harvesting inside your skull.
It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air! :)




BTW, u still didn't answer many questions that I asked. Please don't make me recompile. Also where did we get life into lifeless particles?
So reboot and restart that service of "keyboard commando"! So sure lets continue..... :)
 

legolas

Padawan
It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air! :)
You sure are something :) Your interpretations about things are the world's interpretations :D definition of hollow :D. Ok. noted.

I think the only difference between those scientists or how you prefer to call as materialists and you whiners is that, when we claim a theory, we label it "theory" and not fact. Coz, to simply put it.. its just a theory.
But, the amount of faith you build from a dumb translation about vedas having interpreted about nuclear weapons and stuffs and even arguing about it is what woes.
In science, until it is proved, its just a theory and we let the world know it that way. Science is not ashamed to tell it has not found evidence (for example even Homeopathists dont know why it works or how the hell it works :D ). But you buggers the moment you get hand on a document... every thing obviously will be there already and has been discovered 100000000000000 years ago! :D
But you have already chosen to believe whatever is said without even documentation and viable proofs where people can tell anything without other people documenting it or wanting necessary proofs and criterias, testings, experimental procedures and what not...
And then you have your own definitions of things! :)
I guess now I am getting my definition of "Spiritual atheist" :p
Ignorance is bliss, Enjoy it.
 

karnivore

in your face..
Ignorance is bliss, Enjoy it.
Ignorance is bliss or piss ? (Baaah........i keep forgetting):D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to Add:
We r "creating" a model with the aid of "external energy". Was the original model as such? Yes or no? On one hand u r rejecting a "creation theory" and on other fervently advocatig LHC i.e a model that will be created with the aid of "external energy", something and someone?? I'M not advocating creation theory, but just wondering bt the irony here!
U need to understand that we need to know what happened at t=0, what was there and what was before!
You find it ironic, because you have toooo much iron in your head. LHC is neither creating a universe, nor is it creating any model for universe. It is simply simulating the CONDITIONS (i.e. the physics) that existed immediately AFTER the big bang.
Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' – either protons or lead ions – will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy
The current Big Bang model, does not need an external energy source. And besides, there is an obvious flaw with CREATOR hypothesis. Even if you consider, that someone created this universe, in his lab, it creates the "First Cause" problem, i.e. who created the lab, then who created the creator, who created the lab, so on and so forth. Thus an infinite regression begins. Instead of solving Big Bang's philosophical problems, it creates some more.

Occam's Razor will eliminate this huge PHILOSOPHICAL problem by means of Big Bang.

Yes we may want to know what existed at T=0, and what happened right at that moment. But what existed at T<0, is absolutely irrelevant for science. If there is no data, then there is no way that this non-existent data effects our universe. (Yes there are physicists who would disagree on the last point). Hence there is no need for science to explain what happened at T<0. But perhaps, for the sake of knowing we may want to know. But then again, science can't explain something that is non-existent. Here in PHILOSOPHY kicks in, and the possibilities are infinite.
 
Last edited:

karmanya

Journeyman
mediator said:
It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air
I think the word you're looking for is empty. Not hollow. for example, all human heads are hollow; mediator's head is empty
 

karnivore

in your face..
Sorry for answering in parts:
It seems u don't understand what "gradually" means. Does the example of "tetrapods" show the fossils of the body with limbs that evolved "gradually"? That means if one the species had limbs a few centimetre of size in a fully grown one, then the next generation having longer limbs i.e limbs, wings, fins of the fully grown ones evolve n grow a little by little! And that goes for all the species and hence my reference to "sea to land","land to air" and stress on the word "gradually".
Yes, the tetrapods show the fossils of body with limbs that evolved gradually, from fins to limbs.
Here is the gradual evolutionary tree (partial):
tiktaalik_phylo.jpg

The image is not updated and shall include Ventastega, between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega. Ventastega is - rather was - the missing link that was predicted and recently found. However you can use your imagination to include Ventastega:

Ventastega:
ventastega-1.jpg


Here is the gradual evolution of fins to limbs:
tiktaalik_limb.jpg

Again not updated and shall include Ventastega

Here is the gradual evolution of skulls:
ventastega_skull_comp.jpg


I know that this is not enough. Now you will ask for centimeter by centimeter "gradual" evolution.

FYI, this is called researching and backing up one's position. Not like yours, where you sit on your numb *bleep* and float theories into air without any support or evidence.

NOTE: All the images are sourced from P.Z. Meyer's blog from HERE and HERE. If anybody posts any objections to the images, I will gleefully remove them.
 

rhitwick

Democracy is a myth
Hi,
I was reading this thread for quite a few days and finally couldn't resist myself to post my views....:D

Science vs. God is always my favorite topic.......and voted for SCIENCE and I'm a proud ATHEIST.

The thread started with a noble idea people were posting independent views and suddenly I found u all have come down to personal level............lets not do that.......we are a big happy family..........bahar sadak pe jo ho raha hai....lets not bring it to home.........PEACE........

I've read 3 pages of this thread and without reading further I'm posting........so, if my views seems matching with others........welcome.......geniuses think alike:D

I do not believe in God cz I want logic for everything happening to me or around me........and God or any Godly things doesn't care of logic...........science can give me logic, answers, reasons ,whys and hows all of these. The things, that science can't explain, I'll wait for it rather blindly believing dat someone up there is responsible for this.

IMO......God is created by weak hearted......who have less faith in themselves........for every step in life, for every risk they take, they need someone to save them if any mishap happens. I ask why, why do u want to be saved, why not bear what u've done, why not accept dat u r getting accordingly wat u've acted, how u've responsed and how well u were prepared to tackle dat situation. There were no God to create dat situation for u or none is responsible for wat u r today.

U know wat I most dislike about this GOD...........people forget to give due credit to the deserving one when thanking. When someone has succeeded in any task or any difficult situation, it might be that some other people have helped him or he himself has helped him. But..when he'll thank anyone, he'll first thank GOD not d guys who helped him. Why........??? Its d people who helped u, who made u out of crisis and they are remembered later........

I get pissed off more when I c how this GOD is sold everyday.....every moment......The temples, masjids, churches are getting donations everyday but not d needed one.......if u want to help someone why not help him/her directly........rather donating it to any religious place donate directly to where its required......there are a lot of "NGO"-s today.......everyday u get to hear about them, encounter them on the way home why not donate the "offering" to them...........I don't know how the temples helps poor or needy........but some times it comes news paper that some temple is turning their idol in gold(where's the money coming from??), offering a gold throne( again same question) etc etc......answer me once can't d money be utilized in helping the so called "poor country".....???

My post is getting bigger...........none is going to read it.......I'll rather post sometime else.......
Actually theres a lot more in me when I start talking on topics like this.........
 

skippednote

M3TAL H3AD M3
with don't need to write this much cause wat was there when there was nothing.
All the science is derived form our religious books.
 

rhitwick

Democracy is a myth
How do you know there was nothing..........who told u so...read from ur RELIGIOUS books....heard from ur granny.........???
Religious books and God is not same. The books are written about our ancient civilization......when we were prosperous and advanced than any other civilization.......Priests or whoever were documenting those details didn't want normal people to get to know all the whys and hows..............
U r only superior until n unless u know something more than the people u want to rule. Who doesn't love power, control........they too.....and they created those concepts and hypothesis........and people rather finding truth are blindly following wat was told to them........
Yeah science need imagination and we are thankful to the religious books to give us enough imagination to make things in real.......:D
 

karnivore

in your face..
@rhitwick,

WOW......the fact that you managed to read 3 pages of our lengthy bitter nothings, deserves felicitations.

And yes, I do agree that this thread has degenerated into we believe v/s they believe and is no longer about science v/s god. This bickering and brooding are too shrill to turn any sane person away from this thread. But this is probably, natural if you are discussing such controversial, and some make-belief, ideas.

Coming to your point, I completely agree with you. If we put doG at the end of every regression, there won't be much for us to look for, in the first place. The cartoon below explains it.

creationism.gif


Take doG away and put any theory that has a doG-like-vagueness, and you have got yourself a perfect woo.

And this cartoon, explains how this doG takes away the credit of human toil

faithhealing.jpg
 
Last edited:

karnivore

in your face..
Exactly, 150 yrs from today, on 1st July, 1858, the Theory of Evolution was first announced to the world. It was on this day, 150 years ago, that the papers of Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace (probably you have not heard of him as the joint-proposer of the Theory of Evolution), were read at Linnean Society of London, and world never remained the same, ever since.

Read more...
 
Last edited:

mediator

Technomancer
legolas said:
I think the only difference between those scientists or how you prefer to call as materialists and you whiners is that, when we claim a theory, we label it "theory" and not fact. Coz, to simply put it.. its just a theory.
But, the amount of faith you build from a dumb translation about vedas having interpreted about nuclear weapons and stuffs and even arguing about it is what woes.
In science, until it is proved, its just a theory and we let the world know it that way. Science is not ashamed to tell it has not found evidence (for example even Homeopathists dont know why it works or how the hell it works ). But you buggers the moment you get hand on a document... every thing obviously will be there already and has been discovered 100000000000000 years ago!
But you have already chosen to believe whatever is said without even documentation and viable proofs where people can tell anything without other people documenting it or wanting necessary proofs and criterias, testings, experimental procedures and what not...
And then you have your own definitions of things!
@Legolas why don't u just read the posts "carefully" n "slowly" instead of showing time n time again bt ur childish trolls.

The links I presented simply state that nuclear war "might" have happened. If Vedas speak of nuclear material then only adds to that probability that nuclear war "was possible". Again, nobody is saying that it is a fact and that it did happen. U must understand & stick it in ur mind that Vedas itself means "Knowledge". I have never even debated on "Vedas Vs modern science" as it wud be utterly stupid.

Yes, science is not ashamed but if u have even an iota of hint of what has already been discussed with u and ur brigade, then u wud have known that its not as if "science that is ashamed" but "the scientists" who are ignoring too many things at present. Homeopaths also call "homeopathy" as a science. Its ur wish to laugh like an arrogant and adamant teenager and start over again or read what has been debated. Homeopaths themselves tell that they don't know how it works. Even I stated it countless no. of times. Studies even tell that it can be used on babies n plants. How Exactly? U may ask the deeper concepts in homeopathy forums itself if u wish to learn genuinely! But its effect and use is rising as we talk. The "memory of water" in this regard is again just a theory. But a few like to joke around saying "other's pee's taste is there" n using similar statements treating that "theory" as a fact again. Now go back in that spiritual discussion where another member of ur brigade stated that we had "a common sea ancestor" as if it were a fact, which is again nothing but a theory!

So before coming next time for one n only purpose of urs i.e troll, u must read, read n read! :)







karnivore said:
You find it ironic, because you have toooo much iron in your head. LHC is neither creating a universe, nor is it creating any model for universe. It is simply simulating the CONDITIONS (i.e. the physics) that existed immediately AFTER the big bang.
Amazing, one materialist smells fart and another proves it by farting again to tell how it smells n that it is indeed a fart....a confirmation! Though there may be variation! :D
Guess this statement will rule ur next post.

Is it that u don't understand what I ask even after trying hard or u don't even try? Take ur pick!

How were those CONDITIONS created?? How precisely can u say? DID we get an "external energy" to create the circumstances? It seems u simply learnt bt LHC and "hurray, another 'mindless' herd following"!!





karnivore said:
The current Big Bang model, does not need an external energy source. And besides, there is an obvious flaw with CREATOR hypothesis. Even if you consider, that someone created this universe, in his lab, it creates the "First Cause" problem, i.e. who created the lab, then who created the creator, who created the lab, so on and so forth. Thus an infinite regression begins. Instead of solving Big Bang's philosophical problems, it creates some more.
Is that ur "answer" to a question by marking it with "more questions' that I already asked? I already told that I wud ask the creationists the same question of who created the "creator"!

LOL, so where did the matter came from? What was before Big Bang? Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end? is there any boundary? YES OR NO? IF NO, then how can u say UNIVERSE was created? If yes, what beyond the boundary? CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ?????? Answer me line by line, why O' why do u shy?

It feels like I am singing bed time song to a few materialists now! U still didn't answer if u will "treat" ur friend suffering from aid via "modern medicine" or "ayurveda"?


Neways, ur post 652 is exactly what I expected, some worthless efforts that is. Centimetre by centre is one point. Next Sea to land, land to air "gradually" is another point both which don't have "complete fossil evidence". If its "gradual" then atleast we shud get complete fossils n evidences of that "gradual" change. Don't u agree? Next, do u even realize what the E.Coli experiment reveals? And here we are discussing bt fossils and "sea ancestor". "Evolution" seems to have denied u of the most basic intelligence needed for a basic discussion n comprehension!


U also don't seem to reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder"? May I shud talk bt "Dinosaurs" too to add to ur fantasy, their "mysterious" extinction and if there was any evolution from whales and dinos and that where did they come from if its "not like a ladder". Do u even understand why its called a "theory"? Tell me why!


Did u forget that I asked more?
Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?
Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs?





karmanya said:
I think the word you're looking for is empty. Not hollow. for example, all human heads are hollow; mediator's head is empty
I think you are less acquainted with basic physics and engineering drawing and more to books like "Brief history of time" although it asks a few questions like I do! Even most of the Universe is empty but scientists use the "puzzling" terms dark <wateva> to aid themselves! U don't seem to appreciate how and why I used the term "hollow"!

LOL, here I'm explaining in a childish manner to u bt the term hollow! :D
google_meanings said:
not solid; having a space or gap or cavity; "a hollow wall"; "a hollow tree"; "hollow cheeks";
It does not necessarily means having a vacuum n hence grow up! :)

But neways, I hope u read atleast the stuff I posted bt "modern medicine". If u can't talk ON-TOPIC, then u can create another thread on ENGLISH terms and their meanings! :)
 
Top Bottom