The drug dealer on the corner knows that his society, the people who see him doing what he is doing either don't think it is immoral, or they are afraid to act on the information for fear of reprisal. If the former, then there is no problem. In matters such as this, if society doesn't see it as immoral, it shouldn't be a problem. If the latter, then equal access to information would cure the problem.
This line of reasoning has been disproven countless times. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Evolution doesn'twork the way you claim it does, and these subsystems did not just appear fully formed working all together. If you look at the fossil record you can see how each individual subsystem evolved. The evolution of the eye is in fact well understood. Take a look here. more information.
Absent any preventive measures, anyone can access any information they can physically aprehend. Thus the natural state of information is to be free for anyone to use. Only when people try to limit the spread of information does it become non free, and even then, like water, if there is a crack in your container it will leak out.
Hope that explains the analogy.
As for information being free and privacy, privacy is a stopgap measure to protect those with less access to information and less ability to act on that information from depredations by those with more information and ability to act on it.
If there were no imbalance, there would be no need for privacy. If anyone actually used information in a way the majority considered immoral, then everyone would know about it an could stop the abuse. There would be no need for privacy in financial transactions because everyone would know if you stole. There would be no need for privacy in personal affairs because no one would be able to use that information against you unfairly.
This assumes some perfect method of not only recording everything that happens to everyone on the planet all the time, but distributes the information to everyone else and correlates it so that any important information can be sorted out of the huge mass of information that is of no importance.
Until that time, although your personal and private information "wants to be free" in the same way that water wants to leak out of a glass if it can, you should try to make sure your glass has no cracks in it.
Good point, but what I was trying to say was more along the lines of: if god can happen without needing an intelligent designer, then why not life here on earth? You postulate two seperate planes, so perhaps on one plane intelligent things can happen without intelligent designers but here they can't? That seems kind of strange to me, and certainly not proveable in any case.
No, evolution does not assume that for each tiny step there must be an advantage. You are several decades out of date. Natural selection says nothing about purely neutral mutations. Many neutral mutations can accumulate over time, and the combination of these neutral mutations may suddenly add up to one big leap. This is the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
Even negative mutations may play a role. A mutation may be negative by itself, (such as a mutation that creates a poisonous by product) but only slightly so, so it may persist in the gene pool for a while. Combine this with a nuetral mutation that creates a resistance to that particular poison, and you have a positive effect, the creature is now poinsonous. This is but one example.
Hehehe, it always makes me laugh when christians (what, like 90% of the country claim to be christian?) claim persecution. I think it DOES go back to the whole lion thing. Well, further really, to the whole tortured on the cross thing. I think they secretly love persecution 'cause that's what their savior got and they want to be like him, so I'm more than happy to give it to them.
My favorite: If god is omniscient and knows what you are going to do, but you still somehow have free will despite the outcome being predetermined, why couldn't he just predetermine that you would always choose to do the right thing?
Makes their little eyes cross every time. "Buh.. buh.. buh.. If it's predetermined then... buh... buh.. buh... free will means... choice... god.. means.. free... buh... buh... buh... It just is, okay?" Okay monkey boy, whatever gets you through the night.
Me, I sleep like a baby, knowing that nothing is in charge. As high up the ladder as you want to go, there's no "there" there, if you catch my drift.
Well, my theory is that the ultimate void is the origin. The ultimate void isn't nothingness (of course it IS nothingness as well...) It is the complete lack of boundaries, divisions, definitions. It is consciousness, not of something, not by something, but pure consciousness, or information if you will. Refering to nothing, having no divisions it contains within itself all possible divisions. You might think of it as an infinitely long string of random numbers (but that would still be wrong...) Take any particular set of those numbers and divide by the golden mean (the relationship of one part to the other is the same as the relationship of the other to the whole.) Or something. Whatever. Golden mean sounds good to the hippies, alright? Anyway, one part of those numbers now represents a set of natural laws, the other set a starting condition for those laws to act on. Some of those possible combinations would lead to universes such as our own where time proceedes in a linear fashion and intelligent creatures arise who are capable of understanding the laws and perhaps even deducing the starting conditions. And here we are. No need for creator-gods, just an unending supply of randomness. Everything else follows from the very definition of unbounded infinity.
But hey, that's just my theory. Maybe the great green arkleseizure sneized the whole shebang out of his nose. I don't waste too much time on it anymore. I figure if there is a god, and It wants something of me, It can find a way to let me know that I won't find intellectually repugnant.
If I were God, I'd make sure everybody got a Universe User's Manual. Hey, you still get free will (if you believe in that sort of thing) but lookee, you get a manual explaining where you are, how you got here, and what to do about it handed directly to you by the guy who made you. Follow the manual or don't your choice, but it pretty clearly isn't some con game run by a fellow luser.
Here's another one. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb (wait till they start to say, "how many?" then interrupt them, scowling and yelling) "That's not funny!"
You misunderstand the ideas of punctauted equilibrium and evolution. Evolution says nothing about a steady state. Please see this article on punctuated equilibrium and evolution.
You may also be interested in any of the articles listed at the talk.origins archive
Why not phunting or gaphering, hmmm? Isn't this whole thing rather fish-centric? I prefer to think of the rubes taken in by these cons as vegetables, thus I think we should use the term gaphering.
This is not about abiogenesis, it is about evolution versus ID. ID states that each species was created seperately, while evolution claims common descent. Evidence supports the theory of common ancestry. Whether that common ancestor was created or self formed is outsied the scope of evolution.
Rather than any theory of abiogenesis, there are many competing specific theories, whether life formed in mud strata, or the open ocean or whatnot. Each of them make there own particular falsifiable predictions. We don't yet have a definitive answer as to which is correct.
Life may have been created here, but if so, it was created once, and speciated from there. The facts back this up. If life was created, that still leaves open the question of what created life's creator. If that creator was self created, why then, life could be self created too.
You misunderstand. I am trying to point out that if the creator doesn't need a cause, then neither do we.
Evolution per se doesn't speak about the absolute origin of life, it speaks of the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. In fact, evolution doesn't require the process of abiogenesis to be correct. Evolution makes many concrete predictions, all of which have been seen to be true.
One point that you have not mentioned is that Intelligent Design, at least as I have heard it put by its originators and their supporters, posits that each individual species was created seperately, that multiple species did not evolve from one original species. Evolution does posit that present species evolved from a common ancestor, and all the evidence we have to date bears this out.
Whether that one common ancestor was created or self organized out of component parts (abiogenesis) is actually outside the scope of evolution, but not ID. ID takes a definite stance here. If you don't agree with that stance, you do not support ID, you support your own hypothosis which is outside the scope of this debate, really.
Evolution makes plenty of predictions that are falsifiable. All this has been covered many times, both here and on other sites. It gets boring arguing the same point over and over again.
If you want to read more about the probablities of life self generating, let me just refer you to this article on the probability of life self generating. It has a number of references at the bottom you may want to look at as well.
A line is bounded in all directions except two, smartass, otherwise it would be a plane or a 3 dimensional space. Did you fail geometry or something? Sorry, just being snide because you were. Tit for tat is fair game.
Matter flying apart from other matter is exactly what is happening. People misinterpret
the common example of a balloon being blown up to mean that space is expanding into something. It isn't necessarily. Space might not be "in" anything external to it. Space could be infinite and more space could be popping into existance at all times, creating distance between objects and making them 'fly apart.'
However, even if space were infinite, within a given finite sphere of space, there are a finite number of positions and combinations of elementary particles, so eventually within infinite space, this particular pattern would have to repeat itself. You can even figure out mathematically the farthest distance you would have to go before this particular arangement of matter would have to repeat itself.
Space may also be infinite but have certain kinds of boundaries that limit this particular space in some way. We could be in a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble, if you follow, with no way of getting out of our particular bubble or even knowing about the bubbles outside.
There are even levels of infinity. Aleph null is the infinite number of points on a line, while aleph one is the infinite number of points on a plane. You can see they are both infinite, but one is somehow more infinite than the other, if that makes sense. There are also mathematical systems for dealing with infinities like this, but I won't pretend to understand them.
Hey did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He lay awake at night wondering whether there was a dog.
The more basic problem with this line of reasoning is, what created the intelligence that created us? Either it was some other intelligent thing, it was some non intelligent thing, or that intelligence was not created by any other thing.
In the first case, we just push the question back one level and re ask it. If intelligence can only be created by intelligence, we have answered nothing, merely posed an unanswerable chicken and the egg problem that adds nothing to human understanding. We are still left with the same question, now re-phrased as "where did intelligence originate?" with no leads.
If the intelligence that caused us was itself caused by something that was not intelligence, then why could we not also be so caused?
Similarly, if the intelligence that caused us was not caused by any other thing, why could we not be caused by any other thing?
Actually it makes specific predictions. Life arose from non life in one particular case, and everything is descended from that case. Life was not created independently on many seperate occasions. Theory predicts there will be a tree of relationships bewteen living things today, and that is just what we see.
Is there a way to tell if life arose on it's own or was created that one time? Not right now. But if it was created, what created the thing that created it?
What I mean is, scientists don't say things like, "Well, there must be some way that life arose from non life" they put forth specific, falsifiable ways that it can, so there aren't an infinite number of possible ways that must be disproven, thus your whole argument is invalid.
This whole line of argument just pushes the First Cause back one level. Where does intelligence some from originally? Either intelligence is uncaused, or it has a cause that is not intelligence. If it is uncaused, then other things such as information can also be uncaused without the need for intelligence. If it is caused by something other than aonther intelligence, then information can also be caused by something other than intelligence.
Information originates all the time without being caused by intelligence, as do complex self replicating patterns. Any bit of data is in fact information. Is a particle here or isn't it? How big is that planet? How hot is that water? All those things are information. They don't necessarily have an intelligent cause.
But they might, and there is no real way to prove they don't, as someone can always say, "Well, an intelligence might have made it look that way" to any conceivable experimental result.
In fact, information is energy. It can't be created or destroyed. It just is. It can change form, and intelligence is particularly good at changing the form of information, but it never creates it.
No, scientists don't make claims like that. There are a number of specific ideas about how unintelligent processes can create living organisms. Stop attacking straw men.
The problem with people who support ID is that they reason backwards from conclusion to argument, so even if there were some proven process whereby life arose from non-life, they would find some other way of reaching their conclusions.
Trash Talk Ah yeah, here we go again! Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass. This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of evolutionary science. Check it!
Verse 1 Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches, every time I think of them my trigger finger itches. They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class, Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass. Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve, straight up fairy stories even children don't believe. I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say, all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk Break it down. Ah damn, this is a funky jam! I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in. Check it.
Verse 2 Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority. Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory", they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me. The cosmos is expanding every second, every day, but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray. They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred, if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk Bass! Bring that shit in! Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers. Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years. Fuck that! If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes. Fucking creationists. Fuck them.
No. It can be infinite and expanding. Infinity plus anything still equals infinity. Infinity minus anything still equals infinity. It can have boundaries and be infinite. For instance, a line can be infintely long but it still has boundaries. Infinity is a weird thing.
Very well put. It's true. Reminds me of a line from the King Missile song about what is straight and what is gay, "I don't have a problem with gay guys. I just have a problem with straight guys who don't know they're gay." I don't have a problem with christians who have real faith, I just have a problem with christians who have no faith.
Oh please. If something more complex than life on earth (i.e. God) can happen without an external cause, why can't life on earth itself happen without an external cause? This whole line of argument seems like a waste of time to me, it answers nothing and merely pushes the question back a semantic level
Honestly, there are plenty of hypothesis as to how self replicating systems can form. There is even evidence for some of those hypothesis, there just isn't enough yet to make a clear theory. You just haven't looked very hard because you don't want to find any evidence that might contradict your chosen worldview.
The GP never made that connection. Sounds like you've got a case of Persecuted Christian Syndrome. Guess what? Christians are in the majority, they make the rules, they get the perks, no one has the power to persecute them anymore. So stop with the pity party already.
Hi dave! First let me say that for the most part I enjoy your debating style and insight even though I suspect we disagree on many issues. It looks like we agree that ID is not scientific at least. However, as I pointed out in my post, if it is included in philosophy it should be as an example of sophistry, the art of winning debate through emotional appeal rather than logical argumentation. Even as a philosophy it is worthless, as the argumentation is full of false premises and faulty reasoning.
The possibility of a force beyond our reckoning is irrelevant. If something caused the universe, either it itself was caused, or it was uncaused. If it was casued, it isn't God, merely a superior force, kind of like me when I play my sims. It is in the same boat we are, only on a larger plane. It is subject to the laws of casue and effect, and even if it is omniscient about our plane, on it's own level of existence it must have desires that can go unfulfilled and things it does not know.
If it is uncaused, well, couldn't our own universe be uncaused as well? What purpose does it serve to simply push the question back one level? I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm just saying that until and unless It makes it's desires known more clearly in a way that isn't subject to human misinterpretation, Its existence or lack thereof has no impact on my life and how I live it.
To live otherwise is to become a slave to some other human's interpretaion of the unknowable.
Boo hoo hoo. Poor AC wants to be popular like TMM is but he doesn't have the knowledge, insight, or social skills to pull it off so he resorts to name calling and inuendo. Ring ring, Junior High called, it wants its backbiting insecurity back.
Slashdot Mirror
The drug dealer on the corner knows that his society, the people who see him doing what he is doing either don't think it is immoral, or they are afraid to act on the information for fear of reprisal. If the former, then there is no problem. In matters such as this, if society doesn't see it as immoral, it shouldn't be a problem. If the latter, then equal access to information would cure the problem.
This line of reasoning has been disproven countless times. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Evolution doesn'twork the way you claim it does, and these subsystems did not just appear fully formed working all together. If you look at the fossil record you can see how each individual subsystem evolved. The evolution of the eye is in fact well understood. Take a look here. more information.
Absent any preventive measures, anyone can access any information they can physically aprehend. Thus the natural state of information is to be free for anyone to use. Only when people try to limit the spread of information does it become non free, and even then, like water, if there is a crack in your container it will leak out.
Hope that explains the analogy.
As for information being free and privacy, privacy is a stopgap measure to protect those with less access to information and less ability to act on that information from depredations by those with more information and ability to act on it.
If there were no imbalance, there would be no need for privacy. If anyone actually used information in a way the majority considered immoral, then everyone would know about it an could stop the abuse. There would be no need for privacy in financial transactions because everyone would know if you stole. There would be no need for privacy in personal affairs because no one would be able to use that information against you unfairly.
This assumes some perfect method of not only recording everything that happens to everyone on the planet all the time, but distributes the information to everyone else and correlates it so that any important information can be sorted out of the huge mass of information that is of no importance.
Until that time, although your personal and private information "wants to be free" in the same way that water wants to leak out of a glass if it can, you should try to make sure your glass has no cracks in it.
Good point, but what I was trying to say was more along the lines of: if god can happen without needing an intelligent designer, then why not life here on earth? You postulate two seperate planes, so perhaps on one plane intelligent things can happen without intelligent designers but here they can't? That seems kind of strange to me, and certainly not proveable in any case.
No, evolution does not assume that for each tiny step there must be an advantage. You are several decades out of date. Natural selection says nothing about purely neutral mutations. Many neutral mutations can accumulate over time, and the combination of these neutral mutations may suddenly add up to one big leap. This is the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
Even negative mutations may play a role. A mutation may be negative by itself, (such as a mutation that creates a poisonous by product) but only slightly so, so it may persist in the gene pool for a while. Combine this with a nuetral mutation that creates a resistance to that particular poison, and you have a positive effect, the creature is now poinsonous. This is but one example.
Hehehe, it always makes me laugh when christians (what, like 90% of the country claim to be christian?) claim persecution. I think it DOES go back to the whole lion thing. Well, further really, to the whole tortured on the cross thing. I think they secretly love persecution 'cause that's what their savior got and they want to be like him, so I'm more than happy to give it to them.
My favorite: If god is omniscient and knows what you are going to do, but you still somehow have free will despite the outcome being predetermined, why couldn't he just predetermine that you would always choose to do the right thing?
Makes their little eyes cross every time. "Buh.. buh.. buh.. If it's predetermined then... buh... buh.. buh... free will means... choice... god.. means.. free... buh... buh... buh... It just is, okay?" Okay monkey boy, whatever gets you through the night.
Me, I sleep like a baby, knowing that nothing is in charge. As high up the ladder as you want to go, there's no "there" there, if you catch my drift.
Well, my theory is that the ultimate void is the origin. The ultimate void isn't nothingness (of course it IS nothingness as well...) It is the complete lack of boundaries, divisions, definitions. It is consciousness, not of something, not by something, but pure consciousness, or information if you will. Refering to nothing, having no divisions it contains within itself all possible divisions. You might think of it as an infinitely long string of random numbers (but that would still be wrong...) Take any particular set of those numbers and divide by the golden mean (the relationship of one part to the other is the same as the relationship of the other to the whole.) Or something. Whatever. Golden mean sounds good to the hippies, alright? Anyway, one part of those numbers now represents a set of natural laws, the other set a starting condition for those laws to act on. Some of those possible combinations would lead to universes such as our own where time proceedes in a linear fashion and intelligent creatures arise who are capable of understanding the laws and perhaps even deducing the starting conditions. And here we are. No need for creator-gods, just an unending supply of randomness. Everything else follows from the very definition of unbounded infinity.
But hey, that's just my theory. Maybe the great green arkleseizure sneized the whole shebang out of his nose. I don't waste too much time on it anymore. I figure if there is a god, and It wants something of me, It can find a way to let me know that I won't find intellectually repugnant.
If I were God, I'd make sure everybody got a Universe User's Manual. Hey, you still get free will (if you believe in that sort of thing) but lookee, you get a manual explaining where you are, how you got here, and what to do about it handed directly to you by the guy who made you. Follow the manual or don't your choice, but it pretty clearly isn't some con game run by a fellow luser.
Here's another one. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb (wait till they start to say, "how many?" then interrupt them, scowling and yelling) "That's not funny!"
You misunderstand the ideas of punctauted equilibrium and evolution. Evolution says nothing about a steady state. Please see this article on punctuated equilibrium and evolution.
You may also be interested in any of the articles listed at the talk.origins archive
Why not phunting or gaphering, hmmm? Isn't this whole thing rather fish-centric? I prefer to think of the rubes taken in by these cons as vegetables, thus I think we should use the term gaphering.
This is not about abiogenesis, it is about evolution versus ID. ID states that each species was created seperately, while evolution claims common descent. Evidence supports the theory of common ancestry. Whether that common ancestor was created or self formed is outsied the scope of evolution.
Rather than any theory of abiogenesis, there are many competing specific theories, whether life formed in mud strata, or the open ocean or whatnot. Each of them make there own particular falsifiable predictions. We don't yet have a definitive answer as to which is correct.
Life may have been created here, but if so, it was created once, and speciated from there. The facts back this up. If life was created, that still leaves open the question of what created life's creator. If that creator was self created, why then, life could be self created too.
You misunderstand. I am trying to point out that if the creator doesn't need a cause, then neither do we.
Evolution per se doesn't speak about the absolute origin of life, it speaks of the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. In fact, evolution doesn't require the process of abiogenesis to be correct. Evolution makes many concrete predictions, all of which have been seen to be true.
One point that you have not mentioned is that Intelligent Design, at least as I have heard it put by its originators and their supporters, posits that each individual species was created seperately, that multiple species did not evolve from one original species. Evolution does posit that present species evolved from a common ancestor, and all the evidence we have to date bears this out.
Whether that one common ancestor was created or self organized out of component parts (abiogenesis) is actually outside the scope of evolution, but not ID. ID takes a definite stance here. If you don't agree with that stance, you do not support ID, you support your own hypothosis which is outside the scope of this debate, really.
Evolution makes plenty of predictions that are falsifiable. All this has been covered many times, both here and on other sites. It gets boring arguing the same point over and over again.
If you want to read more about the probablities of life self generating, let me just refer you to this article on the probability of life self generating. It has a number of references at the bottom you may want to look at as well.
A line is bounded in all directions except two, smartass, otherwise it would be a plane or a 3 dimensional space. Did you fail geometry or something? Sorry, just being snide because you were. Tit for tat is fair game.
Matter flying apart from other matter is exactly what is happening. People misinterpret
the common example of a balloon being blown up to mean that space is expanding into something. It isn't necessarily. Space might not be "in" anything external to it. Space could be infinite and more space could be popping into existance at all times, creating distance between objects and making them 'fly apart.'
However, even if space were infinite, within a given finite sphere of space, there are a finite number of positions and combinations of elementary particles, so eventually within infinite space, this particular pattern would have to repeat itself. You can even figure out mathematically the farthest distance you would have to go before this particular arangement of matter would have to repeat itself.
Space may also be infinite but have certain kinds of boundaries that limit this particular space in some way. We could be in a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble, if you follow, with no way of getting out of our particular bubble or even knowing about the bubbles outside.
There are even levels of infinity. Aleph null is the infinite number of points on a line, while aleph one is the infinite number of points on a plane. You can see they are both infinite, but one is somehow more infinite than the other, if that makes sense. There are also mathematical systems for dealing with infinities like this, but I won't pretend to understand them.
To summarize, infinity is big. Really really big.
Hey did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? He lay awake at night wondering whether there was a dog.
The more basic problem with this line of reasoning is, what created the intelligence that created us? Either it was some other intelligent thing, it was some non intelligent thing, or that intelligence was not created by any other thing.
In the first case, we just push the question back one level and re ask it. If intelligence can only be created by intelligence, we have answered nothing, merely posed an unanswerable chicken and the egg problem that adds nothing to human understanding. We are still left with the same question, now re-phrased as "where did intelligence originate?" with no leads.
If the intelligence that caused us was itself caused by something that was not intelligence, then why could we not also be so caused?
Similarly, if the intelligence that caused us was not caused by any other thing, why could we not be caused by any other thing?
Actually it makes specific predictions. Life arose from non life in one particular case, and everything is descended from that case. Life was not created independently on many seperate occasions. Theory predicts there will be a tree of relationships bewteen living things today, and that is just what we see.
Is there a way to tell if life arose on it's own or was created that one time? Not right now. But if it was created, what created the thing that created it?
What I mean is, scientists don't say things like, "Well, there must be some way that life arose from non life" they put forth specific, falsifiable ways that it can, so there aren't an infinite number of possible ways that must be disproven, thus your whole argument is invalid.
This whole line of argument just pushes the First Cause back one level. Where does intelligence some from originally? Either intelligence is uncaused, or it has a cause that is not intelligence. If it is uncaused, then other things such as information can also be uncaused without the need for intelligence. If it is caused by something other than aonther intelligence, then information can also be caused by something other than intelligence.
Information originates all the time without being caused by intelligence, as do complex self replicating patterns. Any bit of data is in fact information. Is a particle here or isn't it? How big is that planet? How hot is that water? All those things are information. They don't necessarily have an intelligent cause.
But they might, and there is no real way to prove they don't, as someone can always say, "Well, an intelligence might have made it look that way" to any conceivable experimental result.
In fact, information is energy. It can't be created or destroyed. It just is. It can change form, and intelligence is particularly good at changing the form of information, but it never creates it.
No, scientists don't make claims like that. There are a number of specific ideas about how unintelligent processes can create living organisms. Stop attacking straw men.
The problem with people who support ID is that they reason backwards from conclusion to argument, so even if there were some proven process whereby life arose from non-life, they would find some other way of reaching their conclusions.
I believe it would go something like this:
Fuck The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches, every time I think of them my trigger finger itches. They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class, Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass. Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve, straight up fairy stories even children don't believe. I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority. Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory", they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me. The cosmos is expanding every second, every day, but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray. They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
No. It can be infinite and expanding. Infinity plus anything still equals infinity. Infinity minus anything still equals infinity. It can have boundaries and be infinite. For instance, a line can be infintely long but it still has boundaries. Infinity is a weird thing.
Very well put. It's true. Reminds me of a line from the King Missile song about what is straight and what is gay, "I don't have a problem with gay guys. I just have a problem with straight guys who don't know they're gay." I don't have a problem with christians who have real faith, I just have a problem with christians who have no faith.
Oh please. If something more complex than life on earth (i.e. God) can happen without an external cause, why can't life on earth itself happen without an external cause? This whole line of argument seems like a waste of time to me, it answers nothing and merely pushes the question back a semantic level
Honestly, there are plenty of hypothesis as to how self replicating systems can form. There is even evidence for some of those hypothesis, there just isn't enough yet to make a clear theory. You just haven't looked very hard because you don't want to find any evidence that might contradict your chosen worldview.
The GP never made that connection. Sounds like you've got a case of Persecuted Christian Syndrome. Guess what? Christians are in the majority, they make the rules, they get the perks, no one has the power to persecute them anymore. So stop with the pity party already.
Axioms have utility as parts of a larger logical theory. What utility does a belief in God have?
Hi dave! First let me say that for the most part I enjoy your debating style and insight even though I suspect we disagree on many issues. It looks like we agree that ID is not scientific at least. However, as I pointed out in my post, if it is included in philosophy it should be as an example of sophistry, the art of winning debate through emotional appeal rather than logical argumentation. Even as a philosophy it is worthless, as the argumentation is full of false premises and faulty reasoning.
The possibility of a force beyond our reckoning is irrelevant. If something caused the universe, either it itself was caused, or it was uncaused. If it was casued, it isn't God, merely a superior force, kind of like me when I play my sims. It is in the same boat we are, only on a larger plane. It is subject to the laws of casue and effect, and even if it is omniscient about our plane, on it's own level of existence it must have desires that can go unfulfilled and things it does not know.
If it is uncaused, well, couldn't our own universe be uncaused as well? What purpose does it serve to simply push the question back one level? I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm just saying that until and unless It makes it's desires known more clearly in a way that isn't subject to human misinterpretation, Its existence or lack thereof has no impact on my life and how I live it.
To live otherwise is to become a slave to some other human's interpretaion of the unknowable.
Boo hoo hoo. Poor AC wants to be popular like TMM is but he doesn't have the knowledge, insight, or social skills to pull it off so he resorts to name calling and inuendo. Ring ring, Junior High called, it wants its backbiting insecurity back.