PaperclipGod
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 368
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dark Matter Blob Confounds Experts
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
- Status
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
*Sigh* This is why so many people are getting turned off by religion. If you want to believe in God,fine,but why can't you apply a little logic as well? This insistence that everything written in the bible has to be taken as the literal truth baffles me. I would think the idea of a supreme being so advanced that they can engineer a race through billions of years of evolution would be more impressive than the whole Garden of Eden version.
Not that I'm overly impressed with some scientists as well,the ones who can't accept that a theory,no matter how brilliant it's originator may be,can be wrong. To me,a true scientist doesn't have the word "impossible" in his vocabulary.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,991
I was going to post some comment about how it's incredibly shocking to find that something which we know very little about, in fact so little we label it as "dark", has more mysterious in it, but after reading how this thread has devolved from almost the first post... ahh fuck it.
And this from one who teaches astronomy
And this from one who teaches astronomy
"you people"?? I beg your pardon?? did I say I am in the creationism train?
*you people* (evolutionists) can't stand to see somebody daring think different because immediately you have to make an hysterical scene, hey, I'm sorry you people are so insecure of yourselves that you can't stand religion.
The fun thing, he believes in his god and that is not enough for him, you suffer of the very same thing, your object of faith is science and your preachers are scientists, it's obvious your science/religion is not enough for you either, otherwise you would not go on this crusade to try and convert people into your own line of thought.
Anthropocentrism is just pathetic, it's the race's common expression of every person innermost desires, we all believe ourselves to be the center of the universe.
diSynthetic
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 50
lol @ dadman. If you're trolling, well played sir, well played.
If not, there are two important facts I feel I need to remind you of: mathematics' interpretation is only as good as the breadth of understanding of those interpreting, and, the more important one, humanity has a great big ego to pre-suppose itself as being so significant as to have reality bend itself in order to be comprehended by ourselves--i.e., the ultimate conflict of interest scenario.
Ending thought: though it may be considered noble to attempt to understand the infinitely incomprehensible, that does not mean we ever can. We can only try. That is what it is to be human, in my ignorant opinion.
If not, there are two important facts I feel I need to remind you of: mathematics' interpretation is only as good as the breadth of understanding of those interpreting, and, the more important one, humanity has a great big ego to pre-suppose itself as being so significant as to have reality bend itself in order to be comprehended by ourselves--i.e., the ultimate conflict of interest scenario.
Ending thought: though it may be considered noble to attempt to understand the infinitely incomprehensible, that does not mean we ever can. We can only try. That is what it is to be human, in my ignorant opinion.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Found it! It's weird how solid this stereotype is but considering my family comes from it, I can't even call it a stereotype, it's just fact.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
Absolutes and science don't stick together, fellows. A theory is valid until its proven wrong...and so on. The fact of the matter is that science is an act of creation: you see something happening...and try to understand it and create a model that "fits". Yes, "fits". Thats why theories are changing all the time because we get the idea, first, and the means later...which is why the Higgs Boson is so important. If it is found it will prove many things and, if it ain't, theories will have to change.
About evolution vs creation? The fact of the matter is that the only theory is the evolutionist. It tries to explain certain things applying some logic...whilst the creationist only drops the dogma "god created everything".
How can anybody argue against such dogma?! Its just pointless: science has never been interested in disproving things (aka God, or religion) but in proving things.
So, please, stop making a stupid battle out of this, as its pointless. Everybody can believe whatever they want at home...but they only that is pushing humanity forward is science...NEVER religion.
About evolution vs creation? The fact of the matter is that the only theory is the evolutionist. It tries to explain certain things applying some logic...whilst the creationist only drops the dogma "god created everything".
How can anybody argue against such dogma?! Its just pointless: science has never been interested in disproving things (aka God, or religion) but in proving things.
So, please, stop making a stupid battle out of this, as its pointless. Everybody can believe whatever they want at home...but they only that is pushing humanity forward is science...NEVER religion.
Let me clear something up. In my original post, all I'm trying to say is, as smart as these guys are, and yes they are very intelligent, they don't really know whats going on out there in the universe, but they try and make us believe that they do. If the facts don't fit their current theory, they change the theory, and you know this is true. It's truly amazing how when they present a theory, all of a sudden IT'S FACT, but if the facts end up being contrary to the theory, it's no longer fact, and the new theory becomes the new truth. I find this to be the height of conceit and terribly narcissistic. I don't have any hard feelings towards any of you who may be making fun of me and my beliefs, I am just amazed at how many people in a country that was founded on Judeo/Christian principles get angry when someone mentions God or Jesus. Next time you get the chance, read some of what the founding fathers believed. They all believed in the God of the Bible, and prayed about the correct way to go in establishing this nation. I guess they were religious fanatics too.
Its called "dark" because it doesn't emit light.
"Height of conceit and terribly narcissistic?"
Are you kidding me? No.
Some dude has a theory about gravity. Tests it. Seems to work.
People go "oh that's probably right" and believe it. Then some time passes new information comes up. A new theory is created and tested. Then people start to accept the theory. This is how science works.
Even if the old theory was wrong if it seemed to work based on past observations so it isn't necessarly useless. To some extent perhaps you can look at as a theory progressing in accuracy. Maybe the old theory was 50% accurate but the new theory is 65% accurate. Or something.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,991
If that were the case it'd be called black matter. It's called dark because we're literally in the dark about what it might be, it's simply a bookmark to make ideas that fell apart due to observation (case in point the rotation speed of galaxies being too fast to be held together) work. Dark matter, Dark energy, it's all a big annoying question mark on how the universe works.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
Oh dear, oh dear. Allow me to sort through the wreckage of this thread.
The Electric Universe theory is what I would typically call "fringe science" (and not the cool kind like you see on Fringe). The large scale structure of our universe is controlled by gravity for one simple reason: gravity is like a honey badger, it doesn't care. There is no such thing as gravitationally neutral. Gravity doesn't play a balancing act. It applies to everything in the same way. There are no known physical energy distributions that create significant negative gravitational contributions. And yes, phrasing it in that way was indeed a hedge.
The Big Bang theory was proposed originally by Georges Lemaitre (who was oddly enough a priest and a physicist), NOT Stephen Hawking. You would do well to have your facts straight before posting nonsense. What Hawking knows, the way he thinks and speaks about things is so far beyond the realm of what you are capable of understanding that you probably can't fathom it. Has it disconnected him from reality? Perhaps. Doesn't make him wrong.
Wrong. You clearly know nothing of statistics (odd since you are basing so much of your argument on it). Statistical mathematics is very much a matter of scale. On large enough scales. Entropy, or more rudimentarily, chaos, always grows. But this speaks nothing of the capacity for natural processes on small scales to create things that look very much like an enhancement of order.
That's why galaxies exist. That's why solar systems exist. That's why planets exist. These are examples naturally occurring, small-scale ordering of physical processes. On the whole, the universe looks random. When you look at it closely enough, however, you start to see fine structure, individual examples of things becoming more ordered than a universe full of dust. It's the details of the physics that make this happen. How far of a cry it is from this to the formation and evolution of the complex chemical processes that constitute life is another question.
Wrong again. Science is the ultimate humility, the admition that we don't know everything, but that we can strive to understand it. Religious beliefs tend to be the hyper-anthropocentric ones. You're the one who believes God created this universe for US, that he created US in his image, that he loves US all very much. Assuming that God transcends the physical universe, that makes us the supreme being within it.
It takes balls to believe that meaning doesn't derive from a comforting story, balls that most theists simply do not have.
I cannot stress enough with words in this language how wrong the bolded section is. Scientists like their bubble. If you have any practical experience in the real world you understand what type of person pursues this as a vocation. We don't claim to know everything, people expect us to know everything. It's a rather sad social remnant, perhaps borne of jealousy, perhaps of resentment for our talents, but its something you see each and every day of your life.
The greatest failure of the education system in our world is to teach people that science is about knowing the answers. Science is about not knowing the answers. You are taught science in such a way that you focus on how to solve some canned textbook problems that were first figured out by scientists 500 years ago. It sticks in the brains of people who don't pursue it past their required high school courses that THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE IS: answers. Science is what we already know. That's what you get taught, and if you don't know any better, you let that incorrect idea fester deep within your cerebellum until it manifests one day is utter, abject ignorance.
Whatever you think you know about science from reading press statements from CERN wrapped up on the Huffington Post, forget it. Those are pressured by the realities of our world to get return on investment, they speak nothing of the true motives or ideals of scientific endeavor. The scientists want to live in the bubble, and they do their damndest to stay their, but eventually their ideas get out and have to be translated for the uneducated masses to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. You get left with a world full of people who don't understand the first thing about it for one simple reason: it's hard.
You knew you were digging deep the first time they told you about imaginary numbers in high school and your brain shut down in algebra 2. Never forget that you are not the one to judge these ideas because you don't, neigh, cannot understand them in their truest form. You can only ever hope to understand the principles that guide scientific endeavor, but if you refuse to even understand that, then you my friend are condemned to a sad future of darkness and ignorance.
The Electric Universe theory is what I would typically call "fringe science" (and not the cool kind like you see on Fringe). The large scale structure of our universe is controlled by gravity for one simple reason: gravity is like a honey badger, it doesn't care. There is no such thing as gravitationally neutral. Gravity doesn't play a balancing act. It applies to everything in the same way. There are no known physical energy distributions that create significant negative gravitational contributions. And yes, phrasing it in that way was indeed a hedge.
The Big Bang theory was proposed originally by Georges Lemaitre (who was oddly enough a priest and a physicist), NOT Stephen Hawking. You would do well to have your facts straight before posting nonsense. What Hawking knows, the way he thinks and speaks about things is so far beyond the realm of what you are capable of understanding that you probably can't fathom it. Has it disconnected him from reality? Perhaps. Doesn't make him wrong.
Wrong. You clearly know nothing of statistics (odd since you are basing so much of your argument on it). Statistical mathematics is very much a matter of scale. On large enough scales. Entropy, or more rudimentarily, chaos, always grows. But this speaks nothing of the capacity for natural processes on small scales to create things that look very much like an enhancement of order.
That's why galaxies exist. That's why solar systems exist. That's why planets exist. These are examples naturally occurring, small-scale ordering of physical processes. On the whole, the universe looks random. When you look at it closely enough, however, you start to see fine structure, individual examples of things becoming more ordered than a universe full of dust. It's the details of the physics that make this happen. How far of a cry it is from this to the formation and evolution of the complex chemical processes that constitute life is another question.
Wrong again. Science is the ultimate humility, the admition that we don't know everything, but that we can strive to understand it. Religious beliefs tend to be the hyper-anthropocentric ones. You're the one who believes God created this universe for US, that he created US in his image, that he loves US all very much. Assuming that God transcends the physical universe, that makes us the supreme being within it.
It takes balls to believe that meaning doesn't derive from a comforting story, balls that most theists simply do not have.
I cannot stress enough with words in this language how wrong the bolded section is. Scientists like their bubble. If you have any practical experience in the real world you understand what type of person pursues this as a vocation. We don't claim to know everything, people expect us to know everything. It's a rather sad social remnant, perhaps borne of jealousy, perhaps of resentment for our talents, but its something you see each and every day of your life.
The greatest failure of the education system in our world is to teach people that science is about knowing the answers. Science is about not knowing the answers. You are taught science in such a way that you focus on how to solve some canned textbook problems that were first figured out by scientists 500 years ago. It sticks in the brains of people who don't pursue it past their required high school courses that THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE IS: answers. Science is what we already know. That's what you get taught, and if you don't know any better, you let that incorrect idea fester deep within your cerebellum until it manifests one day is utter, abject ignorance.
Whatever you think you know about science from reading press statements from CERN wrapped up on the Huffington Post, forget it. Those are pressured by the realities of our world to get return on investment, they speak nothing of the true motives or ideals of scientific endeavor. The scientists want to live in the bubble, and they do their damndest to stay their, but eventually their ideas get out and have to be translated for the uneducated masses to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. You get left with a world full of people who don't understand the first thing about it for one simple reason: it's hard.
You knew you were digging deep the first time they told you about imaginary numbers in high school and your brain shut down in algebra 2. Never forget that you are not the one to judge these ideas because you don't, neigh, cannot understand them in their truest form. You can only ever hope to understand the principles that guide scientific endeavor, but if you refuse to even understand that, then you my friend are condemned to a sad future of darkness and ignorance.
Heh... dark matter/energy is potentially a HUGE bandage to mend existing theories...
And good lord, this thread has devolved horribly.
I'm of the mindset that there is potential truth in many of our separate convictions: Religion, fringe science, mainstream science, other spiritual beliefs and traditions. To assume that any one is completely and literally correct would seem to be...utter ignorance.
The Electric Universe and Plasma cosmology were mentioned in this thread. Mainstream science scoffs at it, but hell...while they don't agree upon much (there doesn't seem to be a standard fringe cosmology model) and lack quantitative data, they do have some reasonable ideas...ideas which are largely ignored.
The same can be said of the work of many fringe scientists who investigate electricity, cell physiology, chemistry, etc... strange ideas, but some seem reasonable.
I also think that the idea of "religion as history" is worth some consideration. I actually think there's more truth to SOME of our ancient stories than we realize...
How much of each of these is true...blah... wait a few centuries and we MIGHT make some meaningful progress. It's not futile, it's a worthy pursuit, but try not to die meanwhile.
But yea - of course scientists will be revising their theories. They (and the media) might report findings as certainties ("scientists have observed/found/etc" - when it's often just mathematical extrapolation), but cosmology is not well-understood.
And good lord, this thread has devolved horribly.
I'm of the mindset that there is potential truth in many of our separate convictions: Religion, fringe science, mainstream science, other spiritual beliefs and traditions. To assume that any one is completely and literally correct would seem to be...utter ignorance.
The Electric Universe and Plasma cosmology were mentioned in this thread. Mainstream science scoffs at it, but hell...while they don't agree upon much (there doesn't seem to be a standard fringe cosmology model) and lack quantitative data, they do have some reasonable ideas...ideas which are largely ignored.
The same can be said of the work of many fringe scientists who investigate electricity, cell physiology, chemistry, etc... strange ideas, but some seem reasonable.
I also think that the idea of "religion as history" is worth some consideration. I actually think there's more truth to SOME of our ancient stories than we realize...
How much of each of these is true...blah... wait a few centuries and we MIGHT make some meaningful progress. It's not futile, it's a worthy pursuit, but try not to die meanwhile.
But yea - of course scientists will be revising their theories. They (and the media) might report findings as certainties ("scientists have observed/found/etc" - when it's often just mathematical extrapolation), but cosmology is not well-understood.
I can't claim this, but this is an epic take on Christianity:
Seriously, why would you base your understanding of the universe on a collection of stories written by men thousands of years ago?
If you took a poll, I would bet 99.9% of people following religion were brainwashed from birth, as susceptible kids. Anyone exposed to it later and old enough to form an opinion on their own realizes the absurdity of it all.
Seriously, why would you base your understanding of the universe on a collection of stories written by men thousands of years ago?
If you took a poll, I would bet 99.9% of people following religion were brainwashed from birth, as susceptible kids. Anyone exposed to it later and old enough to form an opinion on their own realizes the absurdity of it all.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
(H ψ → (ψ G ψ
)(T1) ~ (H ψ → (ψ G ψ
) NTF(T2) H ψ
1, PC(T3) ~ (ψ G ψ
1, PC(T4) ~ψ
3, PC(T4)' ~G ψ
3, PC(T5) F~ ψ
3, MN(T6) nBk 5, FR
(T7) ~ψ (k) 5,6, FR
(T8) kBn 2, HR
(T9) ψ (k) 2,7, HR
Apparently...
No. Stop it. It's called dark matter because you can't see it.
Excellent post, my hat's off to you.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Just gotta love how the discussion of astronomy brings out religious arguments. Of all religions, Christianity. As we all know, of all the religions that exist, Christianity is obviously the correct one.
I think among atheists here, people don't care about what other people worship, until it gets in the way of science. Science has no Priests or Gods. Science tries to make things finite, religion is far less forgiving.
An Atheist sees something like Star Wars as fantasy. A religious person reads the Bible, and thinks it's fact. Yet, they're both a work of fiction.
Yet I see fanatic religious people who constantly sin. Asks for forgiveness by God, and goes back and does it again. It's an endless cycle that solves nothing. All so that you can believe that there's life after death.
News flash, fanatically religious people have deep underlying issues. Most are afraid of death. Some can't look at themselves in the mirror, cause they know they did something bad. As long as you have this mythical entity to forgive, you go on your merry way to continue doing the very act you sought after to be forgiven.
Another one for the ignore list.
Have fun never generating a single iota of new information in your life.
If by compelling you mean completely unscientific because it offers no falsifiable hypothesis, then yeah.
I admire how succinct that is.
More complicated than that. It doesn't seem to interact with light. It doesn't emit or absorb it, either.
The name dark matter is a placeholder, like dark energy. For both the "dark" refers to how they do not interact with electromagnetic radiation at all, making them awfully hard to study at a distance. If we figure out what the stuff is we'll probably get a better name for it.
Creationism vs evolutionary science bombthrowing aside, methinks these guys need to confer with Julian Barbour a bit more. Check out the recent article in Discovery about him (March, 2012). Fascinating stuff that would seem to start to be able to account for some of these anomalies.
Using the Machian theory of pure relativity to postulate a relative notion of time that completely dispenses with the need for dark energy and dark matter. Not complete yet, but it sure seems like the more people get involved, the stronger the theory becomes.
Essentially, there is no set "time" that is modified by gravity or speed, but that "time" is solely measured by the relative positions of items with respect to eachother. Tough to wrap your head around, but the article is pretty well written.
And then there's this gem in the article:
""Einstein held tha there is no such thing as universal time and that matter affects the rate at which clocks tick, such that time slow near massive objects. Accordingly, Wiltshire [a physicist at the U of Canterbury in New Zealand and a visitor to Barbour's college farm] notes, the flow of time near galaxies could be slower than the flow of time near massive objects. 'In empty space, over 18 billion years have elapsed since the Big Bang, but within galaxies, only about 15 billion years have passed.' (Because Wiltshire starts from a separate set of physical assumptions, his numbers are different from the now canonical 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe.)
By ignoring those nuances, WIltshire claims, cosmologists have misinterpreted the positions of the distant supernova explosions used to determine how quickly the universe is expanding. Light from a supernova travels to Earth's telescopes after passing through both patches of empty space where the universe expands more rapidly) and through intervening galaxies filled with matter (where the expansion slows). As a result, Wilshire says, cosmologists expect the supernovas to be closer than they apear, creating the illusion that the expansion of the universe is speeding up"
Now, THAT would be interesting.....
BB
Using the Machian theory of pure relativity to postulate a relative notion of time that completely dispenses with the need for dark energy and dark matter. Not complete yet, but it sure seems like the more people get involved, the stronger the theory becomes.
Essentially, there is no set "time" that is modified by gravity or speed, but that "time" is solely measured by the relative positions of items with respect to eachother. Tough to wrap your head around, but the article is pretty well written.
And then there's this gem in the article:
""Einstein held tha there is no such thing as universal time and that matter affects the rate at which clocks tick, such that time slow near massive objects. Accordingly, Wiltshire [a physicist at the U of Canterbury in New Zealand and a visitor to Barbour's college farm] notes, the flow of time near galaxies could be slower than the flow of time near massive objects. 'In empty space, over 18 billion years have elapsed since the Big Bang, but within galaxies, only about 15 billion years have passed.' (Because Wiltshire starts from a separate set of physical assumptions, his numbers are different from the now canonical 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe.)
By ignoring those nuances, WIltshire claims, cosmologists have misinterpreted the positions of the distant supernova explosions used to determine how quickly the universe is expanding. Light from a supernova travels to Earth's telescopes after passing through both patches of empty space where the universe expands more rapidly) and through intervening galaxies filled with matter (where the expansion slows). As a result, Wilshire says, cosmologists expect the supernovas to be closer than they apear, creating the illusion that the expansion of the universe is speeding up"
Now, THAT would be interesting.....
BB
BTW - December 2000 Discover article about him:
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/cover
More people have gotten involved, and things are looking more and more interesting.
BB
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/cover
More people have gotten involved, and things are looking more and more interesting.
BB
"For all the apparent complexity of his scheme, Barbour believes that it provides the simplest way to merge quantum mechanics and relativity into a single theory of the universe. Like all physicists, he strongly believes that mathematically elegant explanations tend to be true, even if they conflict with common sense. "I think the approach I'm proposing does deserve to be taken seriously," he says. "It would be extremely rash and stupid to say it's definitely right, but there's an inner logic to these ideas. They're very natural. If we want to put quantum mechanics and general relativity together, what is the simplest way that could be done? I believe it is the way I've proposed. And I believe it is essentially the way that Bryce DeWitt discovered in 1967 when he found his infamous equation."
Yes, this could be very cool.
BB
Yes, this could be very cool.
BB
The thing that the muggles don't get about "order from chaos" is that the universe was most ordered at the moment of the big bang. Very uniform, very smooth. That's order, low entropy. It's been going downhill since then. We are at an interesting stage now, where temperature has dropped, particles have formed and clumped together into structures. We are not near the end. We now expect that the universe is continually accelerating in expansion. One day all other galaxies will be moving away from us so fast we will never see them again. The deep sky will be simply black. In the distant future particles may decompose to form photons that will simply zip about in an ever larger, more lonely space. They won't even interact with each other and at that point it will be questionable what time even means. With no events, what's time?
That's chaos. That's where we are going.
A nice analogy I thought of is if you take a drop of food color and put it in a glass. The drop itself is highly ordered. It's uniform, predictable. You drop it in the glass and it makes whispy clouds that look fantastic. That's us now, with galaxies and superclusters and everything that's neat in the universe. Let it sit for a while and it turns into a diffuse solution. At that point nothing more happens, it's all spread out, there's nothing to look at, no interesting structure, and nothing more to happen. That's the death of our universe.
It's kinda depressing too, if you ask me.
TheCommander
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,999
Wow this degraded into a *religion* thread pretty fast. Nobody on either side knows whether God truly exists or does not. It's a pointless debate.
It's easy to figure out that religious people do not believe in God. The principle at work is that people act according to their true beliefs.
If your wife was in a motel room with you and a hooker, you wouldn't touch the hooker in a million years. That's because you definitely believe your wife will see it and there will be hell to pay.
But I'm supposed to believe some guy who says he believes in an all knowing God, but still screws the hooker? Yeah, right. Doesn't really believe in God, period.
That's really the crux of it. As a former evangelical, and the son of a PhD engineer who still believes that nonsense, that is completely the main motivation. They fear death, and the uncertain meaning of life. Intelligent people will tie their brain into a nearly schizophrenic knot to try to maintain the illusion.
Bzzt, wrong. I know for certain the Christian god does not exist and it's easy to prove. The problem is the massive denial of believers, not the logic.
Creation is an attempt to explain life with a God.
Evolution is an attempt to explain life without a God.
If you come to either theory without any preconceptions there's a whole big fucking gaping hole of "WTF?". I personally find it pretty fucking hard to believe certain creatures and organisms evolved to be what they are now, there's just a huge logic gap in how that happened. Creationism on the other hand requires a belief in a God, you aren't going to believe in a God because you believe in Creationism, it goes the other way, you already believe in a God so you can see how creation is a possibility. If you don't already believe in a God which is beyond our grasp to understand, then creation is fanciful. But at the same time you have to admit evolution is pretty fanciful as well
I tend to float in a middle ground and am not going to commit myself into believing any theory of how things came to be until I've seen something conclusive enough for me to believe it is true, which probably won't happen in my life time.
Evolution is an attempt to explain life without a God.
If you come to either theory without any preconceptions there's a whole big fucking gaping hole of "WTF?". I personally find it pretty fucking hard to believe certain creatures and organisms evolved to be what they are now, there's just a huge logic gap in how that happened. Creationism on the other hand requires a belief in a God, you aren't going to believe in a God because you believe in Creationism, it goes the other way, you already believe in a God so you can see how creation is a possibility. If you don't already believe in a God which is beyond our grasp to understand, then creation is fanciful. But at the same time you have to admit evolution is pretty fanciful as well
I tend to float in a middle ground and am not going to commit myself into believing any theory of how things came to be until I've seen something conclusive enough for me to believe it is true, which probably won't happen in my life time.
D4rkn3ss
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,619
@Aluisious: thank you for turning this thread into something somewhat interesting, i've enjoyed the reading. most of the stuff you posted i've already read in the 90's but... is just that i'm drunk (vodka ftw, again...) and i feel really bad to see that most of this stuff was supposed to be common knowledge these days... try putting that into quantum physics to see what a real clusterfuck that gives you, besides giving you an idea of how little we know about anything, it turns everything you posted into a different proposition and probably into a better explanation about the darkness... nice effort anyway, i just don't have all this patience with "humanities" anymore... well...
@Ashbringer, @Tudz:
@Ashbringer, @Tudz:
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Wait, what proof would you have exactly? It says in the bible that you're not supposed to be able to find any proof of god (as that wouldn't require faith and would be too easy on all you mortals). So what would you be "proving" to them exactly?
AnonymousUser
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 726
Creation is an attempt to explain life with a God.
Evolution is an attempt to explain life without a God.
If you come to either theory without any preconceptions there's a whole big fucking gaping hole of "WTF?". I personally find it pretty fucking hard to believe certain creatures and organisms evolved to be what they are now, there's just a huge logic gap in how that happened. Creationism on the other hand requires a belief in a God, you aren't going to believe in a God because you believe in Creationism, it goes the other way, you already believe in a God so you can see how creation is a possibility. If you don't already believe in a God which is beyond our grasp to understand, then creation is fanciful. But at the same time you have to admit evolution is pretty fanciful as well
I tend to float in a middle ground and am not going to commit myself into believing any theory of how things came to be until I've seen something conclusive enough for me to believe it is true, which probably won't happen in my life time.
This might be the post I agree with the most in this thread. I'm agnostic because I don't know if there's a designer of things somewhere.Yet I know (yes...know) the man made bible is not the explanation of this happening. I still would never rule out something having input the universal instruction set we're still trying to figure out even now.
Start/Design/etc != Religion/Bible/etc
Evolution on the other hand seems the most likely scenario (fact?). Whether it be by an initial design(er) and/or total fucking randomness. Meh, it's too complicated for us humans right now. The older I get the more I know I don't know. I hope my peers are the wiser as well.
AnonymousUser
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 726
Wait, what proof would you have exactly? It says in the bible that you're not supposed to be able to find any proof of god (as that wouldn't require faith and would be too easy on all you mortals). So what would you be "proving" to them exactly?
The Bible (itself)
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Wouldn't that just be proving it right?
Can anyone really say what God is? I mean, everything is connected. This cigarette is connected to the ceiling. The house is connected to this triangle. The house and the triangle is created by my legs and therefor cannot be denied. What else can explain what that feels like? Or where it comes from?
AnonymousUser
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 726
I don't mean in its explanation of the beginning and/or god. The bible is the worlds biggest flip-flop(er). It answers the same question different ways throughout the entire book so one seeking can find an answer suiting to oneself. To me, that totally discredits the entire book (not counting the fictional stories accounted as facts which have been proven wrong endlessly). It's like the Mitt Romney book.
It lies while claiming the truth and tells you what you do and don't want to hear at the same time. It's definitely a work of humans....alone.
DouglasteR
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 531
And here im thinking that these religion creeps only exists in the 3rd world countrys
- Status