|
Post by possiblyprodigal on Aug 21, 2008 22:26:56 GMT -6
Well, I'm sorry, but I really find this an important topic, so I'm starting a thread on it. Shyft, if you want, you can put it in the Nature category; I wasn't sure where you'd want this one.
So, marshal your scientific knowledge (remember - I'm a Creationist) and get ready for the (hopefully staying at the level of) discussion!
|
|
futurefed
Human
All Praise Raptor Jesus
Posts: 29
|
Post by futurefed on Aug 22, 2008 1:40:58 GMT -6
To me Creationism is interesting. There are various forms of it, of course, each with it's own varying degree of inclusion. The most common form however, or at least in my experience, is that of Christian Creationism. Roughly, the belief that God created a design for the universe and then said "go." As in He lit the match that started the big bang, and did all the math that goes into DNA, stuff like that.
They (the Creationists) are trying to get that taught in schools as a alternative (possibly one day a replacement) to traditional science, which has fallen tragically short of giving any sort of viable answer for the creation of the universe. The problem with this is, of course, that it is not scientific. I say this not because I don't believe it, but because it cannot be tested, therefore cannot be considered scientific theory. If it is going to be taught it should be taught in a religion class. Not a science class. Pure and simple... it is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.
There is another form of Creationism that has the exact same "proof" as the Christian form. That is those who believe aliens long ago came and created life as we know it. If you are going to teach the God version then you should teach the alien version to. They are both backed up by the exact same facts. The only difference is that one is more acceptable for people to believe.
The fact that there seems to be a "design" in the universe is certainly entertaining to think about,as well as undeniable.
Jumping to the conclusion that some god is behind this design is (in my opinion) faulty logic.
Trying to teach this belief as science is well... irresponsible and inappropriate.
In short I think that public schools SHOULD teach Creationism. However that is only because I think schools should have a class on world religions.
|
|
|
Post by 11111 on Aug 22, 2008 5:22:42 GMT -6
Well, technically I believe in both. Multiple Personality Solipsism would be a Creationist theory in that the universe was created by a being. I just believe that the beginnings were created by some force/being and that the rest has gone on it's merry way.
Either that or there was never a beginning and time is infinite. That one hurts my brain though.
|
|
|
Post by Shyft Trakia-Vorga VahtiDahl on Aug 22, 2008 9:15:31 GMT -6
I do not believe in a beginning. I believe sequence is only the way we perceive things. Either what we perceive is infinite or it loops. As The Gabber Jihad said, I believe in both. For our planet as it is, I believe that there is evolution. In my dreams I witness a lot of creation, so there are obviously parts of Universe that rely on it to exist.
I am with Futurefed about the schooling side of it. Either teach about all religions and philosophies in an extra class or none at all. I wish that I had a class like that back in middle school/high school. Well, I probably would not have liked it back then.
|
|
|
Post by possiblyprodigal on Aug 22, 2008 12:32:34 GMT -6
Wow, I like that I wasn't assaulted as an idiot, thanks! I think that creation-hypothesis science is capable of being actual science to the same degree (or more, as I think it has more evidence, and hope to show that) as evolutionary-hypothesis science in regards to explaining the past. But that I believe in the universe being ultimately and absolutely "Real", and that science has shown that it must have had a beginning, (it can't have done infinite 'bangs and crunches' as it would lose energy with each re-expansion) so I think that (as anything I say; in my opinion) a coherent world view must incorporate a "Beginning". And seemingly thus someone or something to cause it to begin. I totally agree on the school thing about an 'every-idea' sort of class, but again, (as I will hopefully show) I think that the Creation theory is more factually sound and should be taught. But I'm going to research over the next few days to make a compelling argument and to make sure I'm not wrong.
|
|
|
Post by 11111 on Aug 22, 2008 16:51:38 GMT -6
(it can't have done infinite 'bangs and crunches' as it would lose energy with each re-expansion) Actually, the laws of conservation say that no energy or matter is created or lost in the universe. Everything transfers back and forth between one state or another. There is nowhere to lose energy to, existence is finite, all energy and matter is contained within. The only place where anything actually NEW is created is at the event horizon of a black hole. All throughout the universe particles and anti-particles pop into existence right next to each other and subsequently collide and vanish. On the event horizon of a black hole it is possible for the two particles to pop into existence on opposite sides, causing one half to be sucked into the black hole, and the other to float off. This leaves two possibilities: 1. Anti particle goes to black hole, black hole gets smaller, particle goes to universe, universe gets bigger. 2. Particle goes to black hole, is infinitely condensed, anti-particle goes into space and collides with a normal particle and they vanish. Universe gets bigger. All of that considered though, supermassive black holes at the center of universes do collide every now and then (billions of years, space time, whatever). Eventually all matter and energy will be compressed in a massive black hole and existence will collapse on itself. Who knows from there. At least that's my understanding of it from what I have read.
|
|
futurefed
Human
All Praise Raptor Jesus
Posts: 29
|
Post by futurefed on Aug 23, 2008 3:13:07 GMT -6
Wow, I like that I wasn't assaulted as an idiot, thanks! Someone isn't an idiot just for having a different opinion. They are an idiot for being proven wrong and keeping the same opinion. Seeing as how there is virtually no way to PROVE creationism is wrong (other than killing someone and having them come back to let us know) I highly doubt you will be treated like an idiot in this thread. I think that creation-hypothesis science is capable of being actual science to the same degree (or more, as I think it has more evidence, and hope to show that) as evolutionary-hypothesis science in regards to explaining the past. Whether or not something has evidence is irrelevant to whether or not it can be tested. I am not calling the "evidence" for creationism into play. The reason creationism cannot be considered science is that it simply can't be tested. And seemingly thus someone or something to cause it to begin. Exactly. Someone or SOMETHING. IE Big Bang. But I'm going to research over the next few days to make a compelling argument and to make sure I'm not wrong. Not to express doubt in your intelligence, or in the intelligence or others in this forum, but I do not for see Creationism being proved or disproved by people such as ourselves. This debate still has a few hundred years left. P.S. Creationism or Intelligent Design?
|
|
|
Post by possiblyprodigal on Aug 23, 2008 15:11:24 GMT -6
Gabber Jihad; Yes, you're right, and since I couldn't seem to find any science supporting what I said, nor remember where exactly I heard it, I'll retract the "losing energy" statement, though it still wouldn't work as entropy would build up to infinity and it would seem that our universe isn't closed, meaning that it isn't the right shape to expand and contract in a 'bouncing' fashion. As for testability, creationism isn't set out to explain the present, but rather the past, though it does imply certain things about the present, and I'm not sure that the large scale ideas of evolution are all that testable themselves. I'm going to spend a good chunk of today researching (with half of the time going to researching evolution on mainstream scientific websites) and should have a large amount of info to bring here.
And think about this; how did sexual reproduction develop? Most evolutionist websites I've seen have explained that it is more beneficial to evolution (and it would certainly be/is) but it seems that they've forgotten that an organism and all of it's DNA are chemicals. NONintelligent, uncaring, unable to plan chemicals. So that it is better for evolution is highly irrelevant to how it formed, especially considering that it would have taken two of the same species in the same geographical area at the same time to mutate in such a way that they are compatible. I'd call that impossible, I'm afraid. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by 11111 on Aug 23, 2008 22:35:34 GMT -6
Gabber Jihad; Yes, you're right, and since I couldn't seem to find any science supporting what I said, nor remember where exactly I heard it, I'll retract the "losing energy" statement, though it still wouldn't work as entropy would build up to infinity and it would seem that our universe isn't closed, meaning that it isn't the right shape to expand and contract in a 'bouncing' fashion. As for testability, creationism isn't set out to explain the present, but rather the past, though it does imply certain things about the present, and I'm not sure that the large scale ideas of evolution are all that testable themselves. I'm going to spend a good chunk of today researching (with half of the time going to researching evolution on mainstream scientific websites) and should have a large amount of info to bring here. According to string theory, multiple existences exist in the same 3D plane, but differ in the dimensions above. Meaning that there are other universes existing right now where we sit and read. We do not sense them because we are 3rd dimensional creatures with an only slight understanding of the 4th (time, memory). The reasons for there being other universes on our same 3D plane are infinite (different beginnings to universe will shape them differently (big bangs, it's possible that other universes are controlled by a god or gods, some could be infinite, etc etc.)) This video helps explain the basics of dimensional theory: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-97057222894136590Now, for what I believe. I think that the universe that we are contained in was indeed created by "God". Not the God in any religion though, this is simply what I (and apparently a few others) believe. The universe we live in was created by the "death" of the creator in another universe, so to speak. It is said that death is the eternal sleep, so you could think of our existence as an eternal dream. Now this is where it gets stupid and unbelievable. In our universe, humans exist. In the human brain there is a chemical called Dimethyltryptamine, or N-N, DMT for short. DMT is produced by the pineal gland in the brain. In some creatures the pineal gland is the 3rd eye (not a usable one, but more of a vestigal organ). DMT to us is two things though: A)The chemical that makes you dream at night (still unexplained why your brain chooses to release it when you sleep) B)A chemical that can be extracted from other animals/plants and ingested as a psychedelic drug (hands down the most mind-blowing drug known to man...we're talking life changing experiences). Studies have found that when a human dies naturally all of the chemicals in the brain are released. This causes odd brainwave patterns and other things that we would only know if we brought someone back to life (a near death experience is a trip on DMT). Now it gets crazier. DMT when ingested will cause experiences that last in real time about 5 minutes (when smoked) or a couple hours (when eaten). BUT, in the trip, you experience what feels like an eternity of experiences. The amount of time dilation on your brain is massive. So, I believe that when someone dies, they literally dream forever. In the split second before death all the DMT is released, causing the same effects of a dream. Knowing how powerful dreams can already be, this is a pretty massive amount of information. It's possible that a new universe could be created with the rules that the creator has made. This whole thing works into MPS too, it's all a mindfuck. As far as two organisms in the same species evolving together goes: Co-evolution is a process that happens all the time. Certain jungle plant and ant combinations have co-evolved to help each other stay protected from enemies. I'm not quite sure the exact traits that they have, but it's out there if you can find the information.
|
|
futurefed
Human
All Praise Raptor Jesus
Posts: 29
|
Post by futurefed on Aug 24, 2008 1:31:36 GMT -6
As for testability, creationism isn't set out to explain the present, but rather the past, though it does imply certain things about the present, and I'm not sure that the large scale ideas of evolution are all that testable themselves. Whether dealing with present, past, or future a scientific theory BY DEFINITION must be testable. Now it is true that we cannot go back in time and test evolution in the sense that we cannot ever go back to primordial ooze. We CAN however look at short term evolution of animals over several hundred years. I.E. The famed finches. And so in this way evolution has been tested, and can continued to be tested. Hypotheses were made and then proven. You have been telling us for a few days now about how you are going to do research and get back to us... I'm starting to think that by the time this research comes around we will all have evolved. P.S. All in good fun sir, all in good fun. P.P.S. I agree about the entropy comment. And string theory is becoming more and more debunked. It has the same problem as Creationism. Can't be tested. Good book about it called "The Problem With Physics" about the rise and fall of string theory. Thought you might be interested.
|
|
|
Post by 11111 on Aug 24, 2008 1:37:23 GMT -6
P.P.S. I agree about the entropy comment. And string theory is becoming more and more debunked. It has the same problem as Creationism. Can't be tested. Good book about it called "The Problem With Physics" about the rise and fall of string theory. Thought you might be interested. I'm going to have to pick that up. Sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by possiblyprodigal on Aug 24, 2008 15:15:49 GMT -6
Well, I can honestly say that as odd as the DMT/MPS idea is, it seems entirely consistent within itself. But yes, it is, as it's been called, a 'mindfuck'. Oh, and sorry about my slow-going on the famed research, but I am super mentally busy! I will have a crapload of info by tomorrow night (I mean a CRAPLOAD!!!) so don't worry. Oh, by the way, you needn't rush out to buy the book; see if it is on Google Books or the Gutenberg Project websites and read it free, maybe!
|
|
|
Post by kaian on Aug 25, 2008 6:00:54 GMT -6
And think about this; how did sexual reproduction develop? Most evolutionist websites I've seen have explained that it is more beneficial to evolution (and it would certainly be/is) but it seems that they've forgotten that an organism and all of it's DNA are chemicals. NONintelligent, uncaring, unable to plan chemicals. So that it is better for evolution is highly irrelevant to how it formed, especially considering that it would have taken two of the same species in the same geographical area at the same time to mutate in such a way that they are compatible. I'd call that impossible, I'm afraid. But that's just my opinion. Richard Dawkins does a pretty good job of explaining this (never mind that he's kind of an asshole when it comes to bashing religions) - his books The Selfish Gene and Ancestor's Tale are excellent. Wikipedia sums it up well here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproductionBasically, despite the energetic costs of sex and the fact that asexual reproduction happens faster overall, recombining chromosomes with someone else's in order to produce a hybrid offspring is a good advantage to slow-reproducing creatures because it -increases genetic variation in a population -helps spread advantageous traits faster (such as resistance to diseases or parasites) -helps remove harmful, recessive traits from a population faster. The theory is that sex evolved in a very simple form from single-celled organisms repairing damaged genes by swapping with another organism. As sexual reproduction became more common and complex, so did the organisms.
|
|
|
Post by 11111 on Oct 8, 2008 8:20:50 GMT -6
Well, I can honestly say that as odd as the DMT/MPS idea is, it seems entirely consistent within itself. But yes, it is, as it's been called, a 'mindfuck'. Oh, and sorry about my slow-going on the famed research, but I am super mentally busy! I will have a crapload of info by tomorrow night (I mean a CRAPLOAD!!!) so don't worry. Oh, by the way, you needn't rush out to buy the book; see if it is on Google Books or the Gutenberg Project websites and read it free, maybe! Where's that crapload?
|
|
|
Post by kaian on Feb 10, 2009 23:35:08 GMT -6
...Still waiting for that crapload, friend.
|
|