A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Juddog]

It could also be the first recorded reference to venereal disease

Doh!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What an elegant, detailed solution to a philosophical question unresolved since Aristotle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

It's been resolved since at least Cantor, if not before. There's nothing incoherent about an infinite ordered set with no least element. Aristotle's understanding of infinity was primitive.

You must be a super geneyus.

I just have some understanding of set theory, and I can actually spell "genius" correctly.

 

[Juddog]

It says God made man "in his own image."

I have found that many modern day Christians disregard most or all of the old testament, since it was before the time of Jesus.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How is an arrow refuting Aristotelian physics? Have you ever studied physics?

Zeno.

 

[alkemyst]

The burning bush seemed to be a direct communication.

The burning bush is open to interpretation though. The bush actually does burn without being consumed (however; it's more like a flash fire and not the story Moses told).

Either way, while that can be looked at direct communication; I meant God was never physically present and talking to anyone.

That's where many don't get it. People think God sat down and had a powwow with these biblical characters.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I agree; I'm not saying that I think the "God particle" has anything to do with God, or anything of the sort (I'm an atheist), but rather I've seen that view used in various news comments, such as when the announcement was recently made that Peter Higgs and François Englert were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

In regards to your second point, if you go on the assumption that God is the universe itself, then you would be right - our brains would be contributing towards a form of universal sentience.

The whole "god particle" thing sounds like more of that annoying habit physicists have of describing their specialty in religious terms. I understand that they feel very strongly about the grandeur and majesty of the universe and are trying to communicate that to us little people, but damn does it end up creating a lot of confusion when the religious start hunting for geniuses to call their own.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The burning bush is open to interpretation though. The bush actually does burn without being consumed (however; it's more like a flash fire and not the story Moses told).

Either way, while that can be looked at direct communication; I meant God was never physically present and talking to anyone.

That's where many don't get it. People think God sat down and had a powwow with these biblical characters.

The whole Bible is open to interpretation.

Wow, thanks for clearing up the burning bush thing. Good to know an eye witness finally stepped forward.

 

[Juddog]

The whole "god particle" thing sounds like more of that annoying habit physicists have of describing their specialty in religious terms. I understand that they feel very strongly about the grandeur and majesty of the universe and are trying to communicate that to us little people, but damn does it end up creating a lot of confusion when the religious start hunting for geniuses to call their own.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case - because of the name alone, they assume that it has religious connotations, when in fact it doesn't. A lot of those arguments from people of a religion seem to be based on "so and so was religious, so that proves that religion isn't stupid". For example in this very thread we have people claiming since Einstein was religious, that somehow validates their position, but if you look at the actual things Einstein said, it goes against the views that they express.

It boils down to a lack of understanding.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I would even argue that the more I learn about biology, the more I believe we were created. The human body is an amazing machine, IMO, and all machines I've come across are built.

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school. I've dissected hundreds of humans. The human body is far from an amazing machine. There are so many imperfections, so many less than optimal structures, and so many parts that just flat out make no sense that the miracle is that we even work at all. If we're the products of design, the designer was far from intelligent.

 

[Juddog]

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school. I've dissected hundreds of humans. The human body is far from an amazing machine. There are so many imperfections, so many less than optimal structures, and so many parts that just flat out make no sense that the miracle is that we even work at all. If we're the products of design, the designer was far from intelligent.

Your statement reminds me a lot of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's view of Intelligent Design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

 

[Ichinisan]

I have found that many modern day Christians disregard most or all of the old testament, since it was before the time of Jesus.

Yeah...but Alky said:

none of any holy book is God ever said as being anything like a human.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Unfortunately that seems to be the case - because of the name alone, they assume that it has religious connotations, when in fact it doesn't. A lot of those arguments from people of a religion seem to be based on "so and so was religious, so that proves that religion isn't stupid". For example in this very thread we have people claiming since Einstein was religious, that somehow validates their position, but if you look at the actual things Einstein said, it goes against the views that they express.

It boils down to a lack of understanding.

A discussion of what Einstein did or didn't believe entirely misses the point. There are very bright people that believe there is a God and very bright people who don't (and plenty of idiots to go with both). Who believes what isn't important. What's important is whether their arguments are good ones. No one, no matter how brilliant, is a flawless authority on anything. Hell, Einstein has been shown to be wrong on fundamental questions of physics (cf Bell's inequalities and determinism). You can't place people into the realm of infallibility, you can only examine the quality of individual statements. Those that consistently make good arguments deserve recognition, but should not escape scrutiny altogether.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school.

You got a Ph.D. in fairy tales?! That's a silly thing to do. :sneaky:

 

[Gibsons]

You got a Ph.D. in fairy tales?! That's a silly thing to do. :sneaky:

It takes a lot of faith to believe in anatomy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school. I've dissected hundreds of humans. The human body is far from an amazing machine. There are so many imperfections, so many less than optimal structures, and so many parts that just flat out make no sense that the miracle is that we even work at all. If we're the products of design, the designer was far from intelligent.

I suggest that "miracle" is entirely subjective and contextual. Given what we know about how we got here it's certainly hard to go the other way and say that we're bound to be surrounded by intelligent life elsewhere in the universe which people toss around as certainty based on mere numbers alone. As you know we haven't a good idea about how life got going in the first place. Some interesting guesses, but that's about it for now. It would be immensely interesting at a great many levels to find something which is not earth based to compare us to. That's not likely to happen tomorrow.

 

[sdifox]

I hold a PhD in physical anthropology (the study of human evolution) and am an anatomy professor at a medical school. I've dissected hundreds of humans. The human body is far from an amazing machine. There are so many imperfections, so many less than optimal structures, and so many parts that just flat out make no sense that the miracle is that we even work at all. If we're the products of design, the designer was far from intelligent.

That's right, ID would not allow pointy elbows.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's not an argument against the unmoved mover, which is a thought experiment. It's a question of faith and speculation on your part that the solution to the question will be purely scientific.

Its fine as a thought experiment. You seemed to be using it as a real world example though.

How is an arrow refuting Aristotelian physics? Have you ever studied physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I was just posting an example showing that the Ancient Greeks had a certain amount of the "navel gazer" about them and didn't necessarily care if their theories correlated with how the real world worked.

 

[WelshBloke]

Zeno.

Well spotted. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Zeno.

My money is on the tortoise.

 

[WelshBloke]

My money is on the tortoise.

If you lose you get ready made tortoise kebabs so no one really loses!

 

[Juddog]

Its fine as a thought experiment. You seemed to be using it as a real world example though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I was just posting an example showing that the Ancient Greeks had a certain amount of the "navel gazer" about them and didn't necessarily care if their theories correlated with how the real world worked.

Good reading material. It seems that the ancient Greeks were unable to solve these problems since they didn't have Calculus back then.

 

[WelshBloke]

Good reading material. It seems that the ancient Greeks were unable to solve these problems since they didn't have Calculus back then.

Theres that and the fact that they appeared to enjoy sitting around arguing endlessly about shit that had no real meaning rather than admit that their theories bore no relation to the real world.

Hmmmmm, that reminds me of somewhere. :sneaky:

 

[alkemyst]

Good reading material. It seems that the ancient Greeks were unable to solve these problems since they didn't have Calculus back then.

Has nothing to do with lack of Calculus. Zeno's whole premise is really all the same arguement and just against Plato.

People like today just want to agree on something because their 'team' came up with it even if they know it's inherently wrong.


Zeno's entire arguement is due to there being an infinite number of points between to points, motion is an illusion.

His problem was not realizing while although there were an infinite number of points, time is not held frozen during the computations / motion through those points.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

You got a Ph.D. in fairy tales?! That's a silly thing to do. :sneaky:

I know, right? I mean, I probably make a fraction of what them preachers on the television earn.

 

[Juddog]

Has nothing to do with lack of Calculus. Zeno's whole premise is really all the same arguement and just against Plato.

People like today just want to agree on something because their 'team' came up with it even if they know it's inherently wrong.


Zeno's entire arguement is due to there being an infinite number of points between to points, motion is an illusion.

His problem was not realizing while although there were an infinite number of points, time is not held frozen during the computations / motion through those points.

I would disagree; a number of his problems can be directly solved with Calculus. I believe that they hit a point in their philosophies where they reached a sort of "brick wall" with how far they could go given their existing math system; since they didn't have a system in place to explain what happens after that wall was hit, they thought the wall was the limit.

It's similar to those that used to think the speed of sound was an absolute limit that planes couldn't cross, until it was finally crossed and it was shown the limit could be broken.

On a similar note, I believe at some point in the next hundred years or so, we'll figure out how to cross the barriers of the speed of light and fix the problems with General Relativity as far as why it doesn't jive with Quantum Mechanics.