Ironic, that a frog would provide insight into a mechanism that Frogger denies is happening.
A frog has been found in a remote part of Indonesia that has no lungs and breathes through its skin, a discovery that researchers said Thursday could provide insight into what drives evolution in certain species.

The aquatic frog Barbourula kalimantanensis was found in a remote part of Indonesia's Kalimantan province on Borneo island during an expedition in August 2007, said David Bickford, an evolutionary biologist at the National University of Singapore. Bickford was part of the trip and co-authored a paper on the find that appeared in this week's edition of the peer-reviewed journal Current Biology.

Bickford said the species is the first frog known to science without lungs and joins a short list of amphibians with this unusual trait, including a few species of salamanders and a wormlike creature known as a caecilian.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/I/INDONESIA_LUNGLESS_FROG

Your link doesn't go to an article, just an AP page.

Meanwhile....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/tormented/mix%20of%20pics/1558720632_8954a4ce4d.jpg

Borg, you are going to hell for this.

I don't deny evolution is happening, Borg. I agree that evolution is happening. I believe in evolution but i also believe there is a creator who began the world. I do not believe the world began out of nothingness without a creator. That is quite different from not believing in evolution. I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution, something else entirely.

I don't deny evolution is happening, Borg. I agree that evolution is happening. I believe in evolution but i also believe there is a creator who began the world. I do not believe the world began out of nothingness without a creator. That is quite different from not believing in evolution. I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution, something else entirely.
Huh? Can you translate that into English, please? "Evolution" and "Darwinian evolution" are synonymous. Also, evolution is related to how life changes, and has absolutely nothing to do with where the Earth came from. Please make sense.

Borg, your lungless frog does nothing to support Darwinian Evolution across species lines. What it does show is that species adapt to meet conditions. In fact, the adaptation of your frog isn't even all that amazing since frogs have the ability, along with turtles and other animals to absorb oxygen through their skin. How do you think they manage to live in the mud under frozen ponds over long winters? This frog has just carried that ability to a greater extreme but it is still a frog.

Close but no prize, Borg.

Borg, your lungless frog does nothing to support Darwinian Evolution across species lines. What it does show is that species adapt to meet conditions. In fact, the adaptation of your frog isn't even all that amazing since frogs have the ability, along with turtles and other animals to absorb oxygen through their skin. How do you think they manage to live in the mud under frozen ponds over long winters? This frog has just carried that ability to a greater extreme but it is still a frog.
As I've asked you before, why should we expect nature to evolve only within the arbitrary, man-made bounds of species? "Species" isn't anything special, from a naturalistic point of view. It's a useful distinction for taxonomy, but nature doesn't give a shit about our classification system.

Borg, I believe in evolution within species. I do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, ie, evolution from one species into another. You might think we all came from primordial ooze. I do not.

Yes, how the universe started is important to evolution. I think it started when God said, "Let there be light."

Borg, I believe in evolution within species. I do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, ie, evolution from one species into another. You might think we all came from primordial ooze. I do not.

Yes, how the universe started is important to evolution. I think it started when God said, "Let there be light."
Ignoring the question: A bad debater's last refuge.

By the way, no, how the universe started is a question of theoretical physics, which is wholly unrelated to how life changes into other forms of life, a biological question. There is no reason I can see, that this "God" fellow you speak so highly of couldn't have created everything then said "let this primitive prokaryote evolve into higher forms of life, after billions of years becoming a human being".

I am not purposely ignoring your question. What question are you asking?

I am not purposely ignoring your question. What question are you asking?
Re-read post #7.

Why should we not when there is no evidence that evolution has occured across species lines. Frogs are frogs and turtles are turtles and never the twain shall meet. You're trying to set the rules of the debate by saying I have to accept your view of evolution. I reject that.

Why should we not when there is no evidence that evolution has occured across species lines. Frogs are frogs and turtles are turtles and never the twain shall meet. You're trying to set the rules of the debate by saying I have to accept your view of evolution. I reject that.
Well, if species don't evolve into other species, then that means that every species extant today existed a couple billion years ago. Why, then, don't we find any "modern" species fossils interspersed with all the dinosaur bones and whatnot?

Maybe man was isolated for a really long time?

How long did it take to find that frog? You cant tell me we've found even close to half of whats under the earth. As far as fossils go. If we have trouble finding a frog with no lungs. That exist today. Theres no way anyone on this planet is going to know and see every different kind of species that existed a couple billion years ago. Especially at the rate of decay most things go through. Things that aren't solid stone for instance.

Maybe they're just digging in the wrong spot?

I wish I sounded cooler when I said stuff like that.

Anyway, I think there are literally thousands of reasons why we haven't. Besides whats commonly understood.
As bright as you are Borg, I'm sure you could name a few off the top of your head.

I guess for the same reasons we have never found a missing link, Borg.

I guess for the same reasons we have never found a missing link, Borg.
Except we have found plenty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Hey Borg,

Would it be possible for life to come from multiple sources?
If so would it also be possible for different kinds of life to come into existence at different times?

Say for instance, Amino acids existed but there was something missing from that for whatever form of life that currently exist to exist now.
And the forms of life that came before allowed for that missing piece of the puzzle to take shape.

I know that sounds a lot like natural selection but thats not what I'm saying.

In other words.
A puddle of goo was hanging out on the forest floor and the life that existed when the puddle did added something to the goo in passing that allowed for a new form of life.
And that life ran into another puddle and made something new and so on and so on and so on...

I kind of got this idea that just makes more sense to me at the moment then evolution does. I cant put it in words right now.
Please bear with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Try that and get back to us, Inviolable.

The main problem is that the "billions" of years is hard for our feeble little mind to comprehend. Imagine something moving a billionth of an inch over a billion years. That is evolution, it is so slow that we cannot imagine.

eohippus was still a horse, Borg. Horses evolved into different kinds of horses. They didn't evolve into Orangutangs.

Why should we not when there is no evidence that evolution has occured across species lines. Frogs are frogs and turtles are turtles and never the twain shall meet. You're trying to set the rules of the debate by saying I have to accept your view of evolution. I reject that.

What evidence do you want? Frogs start out as tadpoles - is that not readily-apparent evidence of a link to fish?

eohippus was still a horse, Borg. Horses evolved into different kinds of horses. They didn't evolve into Orangutangs.
Who said that horses evolved into orangutans? That isn't how evolution works. Horses and orangutans had a common ancestor some time ago, but one did not evolve into another.

The main problem is that the "billions" of years is hard for our feeble little mind to comprehend. Imagine something moving a billionth of an inch over a billion years. That is evolution, it is so slow that we cannot imagine.
I can imagine that. If I can comprehend a continental shift taking place an inch a year I can handle that.

I'm well aware of how natural selection takes place. Let me read Naps post about the "origin of life" and get back to you. Thats the problem we're having here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Try that and get back to us, Inviolable.
At least now I know why evolution is believed to of been started by a fish.

"I'm still smarter then you, I studied biology"

That wiki article mentions incalculable odds.
Once again, "everything" had to be just right. If anything was out of place. There would be no life. It's like that in every single aspect of the science of origin. Doesn't matter if it's talking about the Universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the planet or evolution. Every single step no matter how small "had" to be "exactly" right.

I read where you and Borg have made statements showing how you have a lot of trouble understanding how people believe in God.
I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how you don't believe in God.

Inviolable, you are taking a needlessly anthropomorphic view of the cosmos. If you could conceive of how incomprehensively vast the cosmos is, that everything lines up on our particular planet shouldn't even rate a mention.

Inviolable, you are taking a needlessly anthropomorphic view of the cosmos. If you could conceive of how incomprehensively vast the cosmos is, that everything lines up on our particular planet shouldn't even rate a mention.
"For when you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little marker, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says 'You are here.'"
That wiki article mentions incalculable odds.
Once again, "everything" had to be just right. If anything was out of place. There would be no life. It's like that in every single aspect of the science of origin. Doesn't matter if it's talking about the Universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the planet or evolution. Every single step no matter how small "had" to be "exactly" right.
And what are the odds that that happened?

100%.

Because we exist.

And what are the odds that that happened?

100%.

Because we exist.
I'm not sure what you're saying here Borg, so I'll reply with the following anyway.

Exactly my point, you just said it from your perspective. Which makes my point even more valid.

I'm not sure what you're saying here Borg, so I'll reply with the following anyway.

Exactly my point, you just said it from your perspective. Which makes my point even more valid.
If you're not sure what I'm saying, then how do you know that it's exactly your point?

What I was saying was, essentially, a paraphrasing of the weak anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). It's very important to keep in mind when discussing this sort of thing.

Inviolable, you are taking a needlessly anthropomorphic view of the cosmos. If you could conceive of how incomprehensively vast the cosmos is, that everything lines up on our particular planet shouldn't even rate a mention.
You mean with all the chaos and devastation taking place outside of our solar system?
Where an unmentionable amount of space is completely uninhabitable.

Hundred's of things that can completely destroy all life on the planet that don't merit value enough by comparison to pay attention to.

4 billion years ago, our galaxy could've collided with another galaxy. We wouldn't exist today. Our planet couldn't have lined up "perfectly" with the sun.
If our orbit around the sun was off. If another planet was to close or to far. If we didn't some how get a moon...

You're telling me all this stuff doesn't matter because the universe is to big for it to matter?

I understand that you're bound to get a pebble out of the grand canyon.
But for a pebble to have life on it capable of creating more then just another form of itself. Impossible.

If you're not sure what I'm saying, then how do you know that it's exactly your point?
True, it sounded good.

What I was saying was, essentially, a paraphrasing of the weak anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). It's very important to keep in mind when discussing this sort of thing.
Hmmm, that didn't help.
It kind of slaps Occam's razor in the face.
Simply because people don't want to explore ID.

You mean with all the chaos and devastation taking place outside of our solar system?
Where an unmentionable amount of space is completely uninhabitable.

Hundred's of things that can completely destroy all life on the planet that don't merit value enough by comparison to pay attention to.

4 billion years ago, our galaxy could've collided with another galaxy. We wouldn't exist today. Our planet couldn't have lined up "perfectly" with the sun.
If our orbit around the sun was off. If another planet was to close or to far. If we didn't some how get a moon...

You're telling me all this stuff doesn't matter because the universe is to big for it to matter?

I understand that you're bound to get a pebble out of the grand canyon.
But for a pebble to have life on it capable of creating more then just another form of itself. Impossible.
Inviolable, you are still making anthropic arguments that are silly and meaningless.

Inviolable, you are still making anthropic arguments that are silly and meaningless.
Fine.
"the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it."

What kind of universe do we live in?

Hmmm, that didn't help.
It kind of slaps Occam's razor in the face.
Simply because people don't want to explore ID.
Not really, no. Occam's Razor merely says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. In fact, Occam's Razor suggests an atheistic view of the universe, as an omnipotent, omniscient being is a huge complication.

Not really, no. Occam's Razor merely says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. In fact, Occam's Razor suggests an atheistic view of the universe, as an omnipotent, omniscient being is a huge complication.
Is that because then, we'd have to figure out the creator?

What kind of universe do we live in?
Are you looking for another anthropocentric answer, or do you want one with real meaning? The latter wouldn't mean much to you without an in-depth knowledge of mathematics.

Are you looking for another anthropocentric answer, or do you want one with real meaning? The latter wouldn't mean much to you without an in-depth knowledge of mathematics.
You have an "in-depth knowledge of mathematics"?

No, but then, I don't require a personal understanding of the basic nature of the universe. You seem to.

No, but then, I don't require a personal understanding of the basic nature of the universe. You seem to.
I don't either. I'm going on faith, just like you are.

You don't seem to be "going on faith." You seem to need a certainty. You seem to require that the contradictory nature of your belief in God be reconciled somehow. It's evident in all your posts on the Religion and Philosophy section.

You don't seem to be "going on faith." You seem to need a certainty. You seem to require that the contradictory nature of your belief in God be reconciled somehow. It's evident in all your posts on the Religion and Philosophy section.
Not exactly. All I am doing is saying what you are. "It's possible you're wrong"
I don't want "reconciliation".

God doesn't give me all the answers, I dont expect to know any more then I do now until more is discovered by my fellow man or I die and God shows me.

But when I ask, "What about the origins of life." I get the answer, "we dont know and thats OK"

So, I'm happy with that.

But then when I repeat, "what about the origins of life" in a later conversation regarding something different.
I get a completely different answer that says, "we know about the origins of life"

My natural instinct as a person is to ask, How do you know?
What has changed since last we talked?

Which really makes me no different then you. You don't have an "in-depth knowledge of mathematics"
But you still want to know and you still accept the answer.

How does that separate us?

How can you say, "It's possible I'm wrong." I'm not arguing anything. I am helping you to understand the scientific point of view. You seem to constantly hunger for information concerning the world and how it works at it's most basic level. I don't need to understand the world at that level. There is no "faith" involved. That is a very specific and experimental area of scientific inquiry. You have problems understanding the fundamentals of scientific inquiry, yet you want to maintain that the idea of an intelligent hand guiding the whole shebang is possible. Well, evolution says (if we were to personify such a thing) no, at least as far as biology is concerned. It's not possible. Evolution does not act in a manner that allows for a guided hand. It is random, chaotic. You seem to have given up on that argument, for now, anyway, and have moved on to astrophysics, where the idea of an intelligent hand guiding the universe is even more far-fetched. The behavior of the universe and galaxies does not point to an intelligent hand guiding it. It is only because of ignorance and cognitive bias that people continue to think that way. There is no reason to believe it.

You claim that your point of view is still possible, because the science on the basic nature of the universe is still experimental. Fair enough, but the hypothesis of God orchestrating it all is still so far-fetched that nobody in the scientific community is arguing for it. You are setting up explanations for natural phenomena with glaring inconsistencies in your understanding of the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world. You are a butcher trying to understand brain surgery. Just because you can carve up a mean steak doesn't mean you can remove brain tumors.

I'm not saying I want to know everything.

According to you, science "knows" what happened. How it all began.

Fine! Tell me what you know then.

It's not that hard.

I can tell you this, science thinks we came from a fish, but they don't even know how water got on the planet in the first place.

Don't think it's absurd to think there is a creator if you don't have a clue.
Thats what I'm saying and thats what this boils down to.

I don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand how the brain works.
Someone can explain it to me and I can understand perfectly. Why cant they do that with the origins of... "everything"?
In effect they're saying they know more then they actually do.

It doesn't have to agree with a creator, because there isn't enough information there to prove anything one way or the other.

Thats what I see. I see a group of people who understand one thing, only so far. Then it stops. That information is in turn from several different sources.
One guy talks about how some bones got stuck in some tar, another guy talks about how feathers appeared on birds. Yet another guy talks about fungus and so on and so on. Each and every time someone talks about something.
They can only take it so far.
They are not yet done. Even close to it.

Then just say, thats it. thats all we know.
We're learning more and will let you know when the results are in.

Like you said, a butcher doesn't do brain surgery. Don't act like you have the answers when in fact you don't. And don't say you're not. You're already so assure of yourselves that you're only willing to accept one answer.

I'm questioning you, exactly the same way you'd be questioning Christianity.
It's no different.

but they don't even know how water got on the planet in the first place.
False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean

It is kind of funny that Borg mentions William of Occam in support of his theory that according to Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, God does not exist.

Occam believed God existed. In fact he was a fidiest, believing that a belief in God is based on faith rather than empirical knowledge.

Even if we agree to use Occam's Razor, it is much more parsimonious to believe in a prime mover rather than a series of incalculable random events causing the world.

False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean
There is no hard evidence of water forming then.

some geologists do not recognize the Hadean at all


Which backs up what I said before. It only goes so far.

It is kind of funny that Borg mentions William of Occam in support of his theory that according to Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, God does not exist.
If you have to exaggerate my views to make your point, you've already given up.

I don't have to exaggerate your point, Borg. You used Occam's Razor as an argument for the spontaneous generation of the universe.

I see both Inviolable's side and Napster's side... I can understand how the immensely unlikely odds that worked out so perfectly in the universe to allow us to be here could be seen as evidence for god OR against god.

I don't have to exaggerate your point, Borg. You used Occam's Razor as an argument for the spontaneous generation of the universe.
Not even that. I said that it suggests a godless universe, not that it necessarily follows (what you originally said), nor that it spontaneously generated (where you got the idea that this is what I believe, I have no clue).

If God didn't start the universe the beginning was spontaneous. Unless you think garden gnomes started it.

I'm not saying I want to know everything.
I didn't say you did.

According to you, science "knows" what happened. How it all began.
No, I didn't. I said that the science involved in that particular question is still experimental. But scientific inquiry is going on there. And the hypothesis that God caused it is not present.

I can tell you this, science thinks we came from a fish, but they don't even know how water got on the planet in the first place.
And what of it? Some questions are more easily probed in to than others.

Don't think it's absurd to think there is a creator if you don't have a clue.
Thats what I'm saying and thats what this boils down to.
Why not? I don't know precisely how an engine works, but I'm pretty sure that ice cream isn't a factor.

I don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand how the brain works.
Someone can explain it to me and I can understand perfectly. Why cant they do that with the origins of... "everything"?
In effect they're saying they know more then they actually do.
Nobody knows how the brain works. There's lots and lots and lots of data, but no real theory on how the brain works. All we know is neurons fire.

It doesn't have to agree with a creator, because there isn't enough information there to prove anything one way or the other.
Again with the proof thing. Why do you need proof? Conclusive, 100% proof is very, very rare in this world. You theists talk about proof ten times more than those with naturalist points of view.

Thats what I see. I see a group of people who understand one thing, only so far. Then it stops. That information is in turn from several different sources.
One guy talks about how some bones got stuck in some tar, another guy talks about how feathers appeared on birds. Yet another guy talks about fungus and so on and so on. Each and every time someone talks about something.
They can only take it so far.
They are not yet done. Even close to it.
Yes, it's called the scientific method. Do enough experiments testing enough hypotheses, and you start to get a pretty good picture of how things work. Everything is documented and peer-reviewed. You can check up on the research yourself.

Then just say, thats it. thats all we know.
We're learning more and will let you know when the results are in.
Your problem is that the question you want answered is an incredibly hard question to answer. And you're complicating the issue by proposing answers that don't fit the question.

Like you said, a butcher doesn't do brain surgery. Don't act like you have the answers when in fact you don't. And don't say you're not. You're already so assure of yourselves that you're only willing to accept one answer.

I'm questioning you, exactly the same way you'd be questioning Christianity.
It's no different.
Christianity is not a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) If it ever turns into that, let me know.

And the hypothesis that God caused it is not present.

That's simply not true, Nappy. Many people, including many scientists believe God is present in the equation.

You want science to know and answer everything. If 100% is not known, then you just disregard all of science. But at the same time you are ready to believe in a god only on faith (which just came around 2000 years ago) without a single shred of evidence or proof.

That's simply not true, Nappy. Many people, including many scientists believe God is present in the equation.
Find me one legitimate scientific experiment whose hypothesis involves God.

Find me one legitimate scientific experiment whose hypothesis involves God.
it's been done with prayer several times, but the results are inconsistent.

If God didn't start the universe the beginning was spontaneous. Unless you think garden gnomes started it.
Are you really that unimaginative, Frogger? I read something a long time ago (don't ask me where) that said that around the time of the Big Bang, there was a time loop such that the universe, essentially, started itself. Sounds farfetched? Sure, but no more farfetched than an omnipotent being.

There's also the thought that the universe has been undergoing Big Bangs and Big Crunches for time immemorial, and thus has no beginning. Or that there was no time before the Big Bang, so it makes no sense to talk about the "start" of the universe. These are just a couple ideas. They're all hypothetical, of course, but it isn't "Either God started it or it randomly popped out of nothing." That's a false dichotomy.

it's been done with prayer several times, but the results are inconsistent.
Prayer is a different thing from God.

Prayer is a different thing from God.
it's why i wrote prayer:slap:

it's close though. who do you pray to, iffn you're into it?

It's not close enough. It is suspected the prayer has a psychological benefit not unlike the placebo effect. That would certainly explain why prayer cannot heal a missing limb, as well as prayer's inability to have a measurable effect when controlled in a properly conducted double-blind study.

You want science to know and answer everything. If 100% is not known, then you just disregard all of science. But at the same time you are ready to believe in a god only on faith (which just came around 2000 years ago) without a single shred of evidence or proof.
No, I'm not saying it needs to be 100%. I've been trying to say, quite a bit of what is known is debated. Often highly debated inside the science community.
I'm saying, I'd like to see more people agree on one thing.

Actually, I know God. So I do have proof. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt he exist. I don't need faith for that. I kind of needed it but not really when he introduced himself to me.
A fleeting moment, the briefest amount of time was all that I needed for faith. Actually a belief in God, for him to introduce himself.

Every time I tell people like yourself on this board how you can meet God they treat it as if it will make them some kind of intellectual retard.

Are you really that unimaginative, Frogger? I read something a long time ago (don't ask me where) that said that around the time of the Big Bang, there was a time loop such that the universe, essentially, started itself. Sounds farfetched? Sure, but no more farfetched than an omnipotent being.

There's also the thought that the universe has been undergoing Big Bangs and Big Crunches for time immemorial, and thus has no beginning. Or that there was no time before the Big Bang, so it makes no sense to talk about the "start" of the universe. These are just a couple ideas. They're all hypothetical, of course, but it isn't "Either God started it or it randomly popped out of nothing." That's a false dichotomy.
Yes but why are people willing to look into these other ideas and not God?

Actually, I know God. So I do have proof. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt he exist. I don't need faith for that.

We've been through this a thousand times already in other threads. The human mind can make itself believe anything. As my posts in other threads, some people believe that aliens live in their basements - they know it, they know the aliens. It does not make it so, just because you "know" it.

You want science to know and answer everything. If 100% is not known, then you just disregard all of science. But at the same time you are ready to believe in a god only on faith (which just came around 2000 years ago) without a single shred of evidence or proof.

I don't disregard all of science. I don't even disregard most of science. Hell, I don't even disregard the theory of evolution. What I disregard is the statement that the universe, including the myriad forms of life somehow generated spontaneously without a prime mover. I believe God willed the universe into being. That belief in no way negates a belief in science.

Are you really that unimaginative, Frogger? I read something a long time ago (don't ask me where) that said that around the time of the Big Bang, there was a time loop such that the universe, essentially, started itself. Sounds farfetched? Sure, but no more farfetched than an omnipotent being.

Let me get this straight, Borg. You are not willing to believe Giod started the universe because it is too far fetched yet you are willing to believe or at least entertain the possibility that there is some mysterious and unexplainable time loop. One mysterious and unexplainable thing is plausable to you yet another mysterious and unexplainable thing is not.

Got it. You don't believe God started the universe, not because He is mysterious and unexplainable; you have already admitted an ability to believe in the time loop, but simply because He is God. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let me get this straight, Borg. You are not willing to believe Giod started the universe because it is too far fetched yet you are willing to believe or at least entertain the possibility that there is some mysterious and unexplainable time loop. One mysterious and unexplainable thing is plausable to you yet another mysterious and unexplainable thing is not.

Got it. You don't believe God started the universe, not because He is mysterious and unexplainable; you have already admitted an ability to believe in the time loop, but simply because He is God. Thanks for clearing that up.
Frogger, you have a really bad habit of oversimplifying people's opinions. In fact, it's really quite irritating. You might learn something if you bothered to listen to people rather than form opinions based on your misconceptions about what people think and why they think it.

I don't believe in a god because doing so wouldn't answer any questions. It just moves them onto some mythical, omnipotent being. Sure, you have now "solved" the mysteries of the universe, but you now have a huge set of questions about your explanation. Where did God come from? Who created him, or was he simply always there? It's the same set of questions, just in a more complex context. In fact, it's potentially infinitely recursive, and as a computer scientist, I need my recursion to have a base case.

Now, does this mean I know how the universe started? Hell no, I have no idea. Nobody has more than just hypotheses. I'm rather curious as to what the answer is, but I know I'm not going to find it just by thinking about it. It's not very likely we'll know the answer to that question in my lifetime. Therefore, the best I can do is think of some (somewhat) likely hypotheses, all of which appeal to my sense of wonder and my sense of discovery. But, I've resigned myself to not knowing for sure. I simply wasn't there, and our technology is presently insufficient to find the answer.

And you have a really annoying habit of trying to parce what you said. It is equally annoying. You gave an example of something highly implausable as a possibility for the beginning of the universe. I simply noted that you are able to advance that theory as a possibility but not the theory that God started the univers because to you that is implausable.

Consistency is not one of your strong suits, Borg.

And you have a really annoying habit of trying to parce what you said. It is equally annoying. You gave an example of something highly implausable as a possibility for the beginning of the universe. I simply noted that you are able to advance that theory as a possibility but not the theory that God started the univers because to you that is implausable.

Consistency is not one of your strong suits, Borg.
I never advanced a theory. I threw out some potential hypotheses. I'm not saying that THIS is how the universe started. But I do find a theistic explanation to be lacking. In fact, as I said, I don't think it answers or explains anything at all. In fact, it simply raises more questions. It's not impossible, just unlikely to me.

Ah, the tale changes a bit, Borg. Now you were just throwing out a theory. Are you in the habit of throwing out theories you cannot believe? Are you suddenly open to the idea that God may have started the universe? That isn't how your previous posts read.

Ah, the tale changes a bit, Borg. Now you were just throwing out a theory. Are you in the habit of throwing out theories you cannot believe? Are you suddenly open to the idea that God may have started the universe? That isn't how your previous posts read.
I think it's possible but quite improbable. I have never stated otherwise.

"Possible," and "Scientifically testable," are differing sets. We should concern ourselves with the latter, not the former. That the universe was created as an unending series of Big Bangs and Crunches may in the near future become scientifically testable, whereas the idea of God will likely never be, due to inconsistencies in the fundamentals of the idea. If God by some fluke of probability were ever to become testable, what we would find would assuredly not be the god of Judeo-Christian thought, an omnipotent, benevolent being. That thought is far to anthropocentric to have meaning in a scientific context. It's on the order of a fish thinking God must have gills.

We've been through this a thousand times already in other threads. The human mind can make itself believe anything. As my posts in other threads, some people believe that aliens live in their basements - they know it, they know the aliens. It does not make it so, just because you "know" it.
The point was, you said I needed proof for one thing and not for the other. I got proof. If I cant trust my own mind, I'm pretty screwed.

Either way.

The point was, you said I needed proof for one thing and not for the other. I got proof. If I cant trust my own mind, I'm pretty screwed.

Either way.
I'm glad you trust your own mind. I certainly cannot. I can't even keep my dishes in a reasonable state of cleanliness on a daily basis.

The point was, you said I needed proof for one thing and not for the other. I got proof. If I cant trust my own mind, I'm pretty screwed.

Either way.


well the people who believe in scientology say the same thing. That is the thing! You can't trust your own mind!

OH here is an interesting thought. If by believing something, that thing becomes real, then aren't we the creator?

OH here is an interesting thought. If by believing something, that thing becomes real, then aren't we the creator?
I believe I can fly! I believe I can touch the sky! I think about it every night and day! Spread my wings and fly away!

::jumps off the top of the Sears Tower::

...

...

...

SPLAT!

I believe I can fly! I believe I can touch the sky! I think about it every night and day! Spread my wings and fly away!

::jumps off the top of the Sears Tower::

...

...

...

SPLAT!

Exactly my point.

"Possible," and "Scientifically testable," are differing sets. We should concern ourselves with the latter, not the former. That the universe was created as an unending series of Big Bangs and Crunches may in the near future become scientifically testable

This is convoluted thinking even for you, Nappy.

You start by saying possible and scientifically testable are two different sets. You then say we should only concern ourselves with the latter. You follow up by saying that the universe started through a series of Big Bangs and Crunches MAY in the future become scientifically testable. In other words it isn't scientifically testable now.

Using your own criteria we should then not concern ourselves with the series of Big Bangs and Crunches you talk about.

OH here is an interesting thought. If by believing something, that thing becomes real, then aren't we the creator?
only if you're a Navajo...or Robert Heinlein.

well the people who believe in scientology say the same thing. That is the thing! You can't trust your own mind!
If a truck is coming at you you're going to jump out of the way.

If a truck is coming at you you're going to jump out of the way.

Sure, but there are also people who'll throw themselves in front of a truck.

only if you're a Navajo...or Robert Heinlein.

Or Rhonda Byrne (The Secret)

This is convoluted thinking even for you, Nappy.

You start by saying possible and scientifically testable are two different sets. You then say we should only concern ourselves with the latter. You follow up by saying that the universe started through a series of Big Bangs and Crunches MAY in the future become scientifically testable. In other words it isn't scientifically testable now.

Using your own criteria we should then not concern ourselves with the series of Big Bangs and Crunches you talk about.
What silliness. Leave such pedantry for your students.

Sure, but there are also people who'll throw themselves in front of a truck.
Yes, but according to you, I wanted God to exist before I believed he does.
Thats not what happened.

I don't live in a religion box that atheist have labeled "dreamer".

What you "expected" to happen DIDN'T

I explained it earlier, maybe I should've went into more detail.
I wasn't thinking, with my eyes closed tightly and whispering repeatedly, I wish God existed, I wish God existed. While tapping my heals together.

Thats pretty much what I've seen you describe.

And no it's not an American thing, no one was shoving it down my throat because I'm a resident of the U.S.A.

I just happened to think, What if God is real? It was an after thought that I examined for less then 30 seconds time.
And BAM God showed up.

Search and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto thee, Inviolable.

You searched............you found. You knocked and the door was opened.

Search and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto thee, Inviolable.

You searched............you found. You knocked and the door was opened.
Yes, thats what I'm saying. But Mex and Borg are making it out to be that it was once upon a dream. That I wished I could fly and was looking for faeries to come sprinkle some dust on me. And because I wanted it bad enough, I tricked myself into believing it.

It was not even remotely close to being that naive.

They get confused and their state of mind is such that it's pure and simple ignorance brought on by an overactive imagination. So they ask repeatedly, why do people believe in this? They make up whatever comes into their head, whatever they can comprehend.

They never once stop to think, it's because God showed up.
They don't think that because it's beyond them. They'd rather not steep so low.

Yes, thats what I'm saying. But Mex and Borg are making it out to be that it was once upon a dream. That I wished I could fly and was looking for faeries to come sprinkle some dust on me. And because I wanted it bad enough, I tricked myself into believing it.

It was not even remotely close to being that naive.

They get confused and their state of mind is such that it's pure and simple ignorance brought on by an overactive imagination. So they ask repeatedly, why do people believe in this? They make up whatever comes into their head, whatever they can comprehend.

They never once stop to think, it's because God showed up.
They don't think that because it's beyond them. They'd rather not steep so low.

Well I'm glad you understand.:D

Just kidding, don't take it so hard dude! just debatin'...dawg!

Well I'm glad you understand.:D

Just kidding, don't take it so hard dude! just debatin'...dawg!
lol dawg!

I'm not taking it hard, I'm explaining it.

lol dawg!

I'm not taking it hard, I'm explaining it.


Look all I am saying is that the human mind is capable of believing anything. Whether you want it to or not. You think those people wanted to believe that an alien anally probed them? In fact most of them were non-alien believers.

I hope we evolve to have wings. If we all had wings and could fly and our lives would be so much easier and more efficient. Is there any reason to think that one day, bilions of years from now humans will not develop wings? There are no rules in evolution are there? Whatever comes out comes out.

There are no rules in evolution are there? Whatever comes out comes out.
:lolhit:

As much as I despise that stupid smilie, it seems to fit here.

It's true that we could develop wings by some random mutation. Now that would be, for me, a little push towards believing in god. Perhaps we're all going to evolve into angels. :)

It's true that we could develop wings by some random mutation. Now that would be, for me, a little push towards believing in god. Perhaps we're all going to evolve into angels. :)
More likely would be deliberate genetic manipulation, giving people wings as an elective surgery!

I hope we evolve to have wings. If we all had wings and could fly and our lives would be so much easier and more efficient. Is there any reason to think that one day, bilions of years from now humans will not develop wings? There are no rules in evolution are there? Whatever comes out comes out.
How would wings help a human being procreate?

How would wings help a human being procreate?
You could just fly up to someone and fuck them and then fly away! I can just imagine the possibilities. :D

How would wings help a human being procreate?

You never know what the future holds. For all we know the surface of the earth will become inhospitable and giant trees will evolve and all life will live in those trees. To better get from one tree to the other you will have to fly. Why did the first animals drag their ass out of the sea and onto barren land? Was he chasing a piece of ass?

You never know... For all we know...
Ignorance was always your strong suit, Trav. When you're not displaying it, you're arguing from it.

ya, and finding sexual partners in the produce aisle was yours. And I am not talking about the customers.

ya, and finding sexual partners in the produce aisle was yours. And I am not talking about the customers.
This is the worst comeback I've seen in a while. In fact, it's right up there with SMW's teenage girl MySpace picture.

I thought it was pretty good, especially considering the weak post by Nappy it was in response to.

You're just a sour puss lately, Borg. Either get a girlfriend or follow Nappy's example and get a melon.

And calling someone ignorant is so original right? It really does not matter what you think is good or bad anyway. Let us get back to the topic at hand. You seemed to imply that species evolve only as a way to increase the chances of procreation. I disagree. There seems to be no real reasons for anything to evolve, it is just a series of mistakes that lead to changes. Implying there is a goal to evolution suggests there is a plan.