Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[Tainted]

Such a conclusion presupposes that each planet in each system has an equal chance to support and sustain life in the first place; along with create it. Such an assumption is extremely inaccurate; there are many conditions which must be right in order for life to even continue; much less appear. The appropriate gases must be present in sufficiant quantities; the necessary temperature must be constant (or at least mild enough). I realize that not all life is the same, and that theoretically there could be other ways of creating life from different elements and environments. My point still stands, however, that not all-- or even half-- of all of the planets in the Universe would be able to begin or support life.

You're jumping to conclusions much too quickly though, who says that all life would have to be like us? There could be some aliens that could ONLY live in extremely high temperature, or vice versa, or some aliens that would not need oxygen to live, and rather breathe methane, etc. You don't know what others need to live, only what we need to live. Therefore, every planet in existance is hospitable to some sort of life, just not always us.

And once again, I didn't overexaggerate how many planets are actually in existance-- I severely understated the actualy amount of planets, because as far as we know, the number is much too high to comprehend. But, we could go with what you say and assume that one planet in every galaxy can support our life, as in, human life-- (there are several even in our solar system that could through a process called terraforming) now-- how many galaxies are there in the universe? Still tons. And we're still a one in whatever the hell million chance-- not very good odds, which is why I believe we're purely coincidental.
Why would God create trillions upon zillions upon fring-ging-gillions of planets and then put life on one? What are the others? Works in progress?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Zak]

Okay, I think its about time this thread went. Sorry Checkmate and Sorovis, but its by popular demand.

Not to mention the fact that I warned about locking it earlier on in this topic, but seriously, this thread has proven HealdPK's theory that it's really impossible to prove either side wrong. I'm not taking sides here. In any case, I'm neutral on the matter, before you start saying that I'm abusing and giving myself the last word. It just seems like you either are a die-hard bible fan, or you hate it with a passion. Thus this will never end, there will always be some evidence proving either side wrong. So not only by popular demand, but its best that the thread goes before things get ugly.


~Zak

[RedStarWarrior]

I reopened this because I was told by Suzie that it shouldn't be closed. I mean, I understand if she has changed her mind since then, but if she has, I have no knowledge of it. I am not trying to step on your heels, Zak, but this discussion has been mostly peaceful, so I think it would be better to keep this open. If it is closed, the conversation will undoubtedly continue through other topics as it was before, hence the reason the topic was created in the first place.

[Razola]

Everyone has been calling for its closure. Why the hell keep it open?

[RedStarWarrior]

Well if you close the thread you run a much higher risk to see another pop up. Leave it open, that way all the religious crap will stay in a single thread and it will be easier for people to just ignore it.

This sums up the reason for keeping it open.

strat, HealdPK, and TMM do not make up 'everyone'.

I just want to wait for Suzie's confirmation on closure, Raz. If she says yes, then it will stay closed.

[The Muffin Man]

Fine then. You wanna keep it open? Then since there's no real discussion left...

There is no god, I'm right, Chrisitanity is bull****, the bible is expensive toilet paper, Jesus was a pothead, Mary was a whore, Moses slaughtered all the first born himself.

Why am I posting all this insensitive, moronic, and just plain offensive crap? Because the discussion ended pages ago. It's degraded into both sides repeating themselves ad infinitum. There was apparently a reason to close it.

[Aglandiir]

You'll note, perhaps, that the people who are actually participating in the topic to any meaningful degree are not calling for its closure.

[Animelee]

I agree with Raven. I mean, nothing from this topic is really spilling into other topics, and if we do close it, then, no doubt there's going to be another "Christians VS Atheists" topic within the coming days. We might as well declare this topic the official religious debate topic, and leave it at that.

[Heald]

Fine. Bítch and whine at each other all you want. Let me know when you have finally worked out the pointlessness of it.

[RedStarWarrior]

Will do, Master Heald.

[The Muffin Man]

You'll note, perhaps, that the people who are actually participating in the topic to any meaningful degree are not calling for its closure.

Actually, I've been pretty activally participating and I want it closed because I'm sick of having to hear AND say the exact same arguments over and over.

[Leon-IH]

I'm still yet to hear a christian with a solid counter for evolution besides "because god exists", I've rarely heard a christian talk without generalising among an entire Atheist community, and I STILL don't understand how not understanding how you got here = God, let alone a Christian god.

[Crazy]

I don't believe in us going from monkies to humans,but any other evolution is true in my opinion,I mean there is proof. As people have said 7 days could mean thousands of years to a god. So when he made birds back then a bird was a terodactyl(bad spelling danmit). And so on and so forth.

[Heald]

I don't believe in us going from monkies to humans.

Monkeys, apes and humans are all believed to have evolved from the same genus, hence our genus name primates, but to sum it up we call our ancestors apes to make things easier. The difference between monkeys and apes is that monkeys have tails, generally.

It is believed that fish were originally on the Earth, then amphibians evolved from fish, then reptiles evolved from amphibians, then birds and mammals both evolved from reptiles.

[Tainted]

Monkeys, apes and humans are all believed to have evolved from the same genus, hence our genus name primates, but to sum it up we call our ancestors apes to make things easier. The difference between monkeys and apes is that monkeys have tails, generally.

It is believed that fish were originally on the Earth, then amphibians evolved from fish, then reptiles evolved from amphibians, then birds and mammals both evolved from reptiles.

Bot Helad!!11 Wi r derr stil fishy if dey evolve to amphibeans?????? Stoopit, LOL!

4d13U,
Z4|< |-|u/\/+3R

LOL!

[Heald]

Bot Helad!!11 Wi r derr stil fishy if dey evolve to amphibeans?????? Stoopit, LOL!

4d13U,
Z4|< |-|u/\/+3R

LOL!

It's spelt Herald to you, you pleb.

[GirlRepellant]

I don't believe in us going from monkies to humans,but any other evolution is true in my opinion,I mean there is proof. As people have said 7 days could mean thousands of years to a god. So when he made birds back then a bird was a terodactyl(bad spelling danmit). And so on and so forth.

Wait, you believe in evolution, but not from "monkies to humans"? How can you make that differentiation? Why couldn't god have, say, molded humans out of apes or something of the sort? That wouldn't clash with the Genesis accounts (which contradict each other, but I won't go into that), and it would still support the massive amounts of evidence for evolution.
Plus, a pterodactyl is NOT a bird. Archeopteryx and Protoavis are the early decendants of birds, and were not related to pterodactyls.

[AzureSeraph]

Isn't our genus Homo? Hence, Homo sapien

Anyway, in Genesis, it says that God created plants before aquatic animals. However, it is thought that even aquatic single celled organisms were first heterotrophs, not autotrophs. Thusly, the Heterotroph Hypothesis.

[RedStarWarrior]

Yes, our genus is homo. Recent studies suggest that chimpanzees should also be placed in the genus, homo (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...519/chimp.html).

[The Muffin Man]

The fact of the matter is, we're STILL primeates. You can't deny it. We're classified as primates somehow. I forgot what part that falls under. Family, I believe...Vertebrates, Animal Kingdom, Mammals, Primates, Homo Sapien. I probably forgot something and probably mixed it up, but it's been like 2 years since I took Biology...

[Crazy]

Well I am ashamed at how little I know of evolution so forgive me for the pterodactyl comment. Anyway yes I do know that we are Homo Sapien so you don't have to tell me. I don't know maybe Girl Repellent is right we could have been ape like in the beginning. I mean there were cave man and they were far different from us today. I believe the highest was a Cro Magnon or maybe that was the least intelligent. Oh feel free to correct me.

[Leon-IH]

Holy rabid donkeys, no rabid christians attack me with bibles.. maybe i died and am dreaming this ****.

[Sorovis]

I feel as though the first thing I should state upon my arrival is that I am thankful that Raven and Suzie kept it open in the first place. This whole 'it's all religious whining, there's no end to it, so it should be closed' garbage is extremely annoying, and corroborating with Aglandiir, the only people complaining are those who are not participating anyways. In response to those below who are complaining about how the thread is dead; you do not decide who will and will not respond. If Brain or Aglandiir wish to respond to this post, that is of there own judgement. And honestly, please quit spamming, or at least do it in some place where it is welcomed. This thread is for those who wish to debate, not whine. The point is not to 'convert' all others, or to beat them back to the point of submission, but rather to have an intelligent debate regarding intelligent posters, topics, and points.

I was discussing with my father on this yesterday and there's another image that we agreed is better to show the point.

Time is the name we give to the concept of order between two different states. If there is no time, it means, basically, that the universe is a still frame. It does not move, it does not change, it is completely frozen. Without time, all you can have is data, and matter and energy is a way to understand data. Without time, everything is simultaneous. How would you define a hierarchical relationship of cause or creation between elements which exist on a still frame? If you replace that within the bounds of time, it is akin to seeing two lights light up at the same time (forget the theory of relativity) and trying to argue that one caused the other. Obviously, you can't say that unless one was turned on before the other. Well that's the same thing. Without time the universe and whatever encloses it is a still frame, a single state, where everything is, by default, simultaneous. Therefore there are no inherent relationships to be seen between anything. You can interpret what you see in any way you like.

The theory I hold to is that time was an indirect creation which resulted when God created the universe itself; thus time did not begin with the Universe persay, but at about the same point. Then of course as I consider it (my mind has been weighted down from the vacation and it will take time to warm it back up) the Universe may also have come into existence in one frame; there was no frame before hand during the creation; just the frame where it was and nothing when it wasn't. Seriously though, remember again that I refer to God as the Creator of everything; energy, mass, everything. In order to understand how I am picturing all of this, think of time as a line and God as a being above it, constantly looking down upon it. He can see any part of that time line, intervene at any point, and start anything at any given point.

Besides, how do you define thought and intelligence without time? As I said, without time, everything is a still frame and only data exists. Intelligence is the ability to have a reasoning: A therefore B therefore C. Intelligence, logic, obviously function on a step by step basis, and that is precisely what the concept of time allows. A God existing, or working outside of time (which is the same thing) would not be intelligent, because intelligence requires time the same way creation and causality do.

I believe it is the String Theory which states that human beings have a limited perception of the universe (four out of eleven dimensions if I remember correctly), meaning, once again, that God does not inherently operate under any given circumstances and laws which human beings themselves are bound to (and can percieve). This of course means that He does not necessarily think like us, operate like us, etc.. I am certain you must understand my point; remember however that it is impossible to debate about something which is for all practical purposes unknown. I attempt to prove the existence of God by exploiting the intelligent characteristics found in the world and the Universe, and by making clear the extreme improbabilities and unlikelihood of certain occurances happening in the Universe without some sort of guidance beyond random. I have no interest in debating the nature or purpose of God; as I have stated now and will state in the future, such arguments would be counterproductive if anything.

Also note that, more specifically, the christian God is unable to predict the actions of humans because of free will.

Here you fall into a trap which I believe Checkmate dealt with at least to an effective degree. Restating my view of God's perception of time (which I also believe Checkmate has seen judging roughly by the points covered in his most recent post), God can tell everything that will happen regardless of free will. Does this make it anything less than free will? Not necessarily. Being the God, however, He has the ability to know how each event will turn out and each decision will be made without directly intervening.

Therefore, he cannot know what someone will decide to do without waiting for him to do it, therefore he is obviously subject to time, and moreso that my previous arguments made him.

Again under the assumption that God does not know the future nor His own creations. Remember again that in arguing for an intelligent creator, I am saying that the normal princaples which we are bound and subject to do not affect Him (unless he so desires). He is aside from the Universe; above it, and has total control over what happens if He so desires.

Pretty much proved that God has to be subject to time in order to be an intelligent creator, but the fact still remained that he could theoretically start, stop, rewind and replay our universe at will, the same way we can start, stop, rewind and replay a movie or a simulation, and these actions would take place in his timeline. That's what I meant by enclosing timeline - you can translate our time into God's time, but it isn't necessarily linear. However, because of the shaky concept of free will, the christian God wouldn't be able to rewind or replay the same events, which is an even greater limitation than the limitations I already gave. From how I see it, the Bible pretty much implies that God's time is linearly translated as ours.

This is nonetheless an intelligent view of the Christian God which is shared by many; even those of the Christian faith I am sure. Without using examples from the Bible to support this, I will suggest that we simply move on from the unsupported speculations of the means and motives of an unknown God and back to the original debate; if God really exists at all.

The Universe, including its own timeline, is not an event either.

Yes but I still do not totally concieve nor believe this concept that matter and energy have come from absolutely nowhere, even with a state zero. Unless there is some law which dictates that matter and energy come from nowhere with no beginning, then the concept of state zero will remain in my argument an unresolved point which does not disprove anything.

And energy and matter only need causing to the extent that rules dictate that it must, and how it must. State zero, as I already stated, is not subject to these considerations.

Again my troubles with this 'state zero' conflict with my perception of your point. I care not whether matter and energy in this state zero behave differently, rather I would prefer please a scientific explanation of state zero, which I am confident there is. I met the inhibation, unfortunately, of not being able to respond to you before my departure, otherwise I would have looked forward to an explanation. But later is better than never, as they say, and your clarification is always welcome.

Your mistake, I believe, is that you consider that state zero cannot be anything else than nothingness - in that case, of course, your worries are justified, because nothing can come out of nothingness and thus if state zero is empty then all subsequent states will be empty. However, you have to understand that state zero doesn't have to be nothingness. It can be non-empty, and then your argument is void. Think about that, because I'm quite sure that it is the mistake you are making, even if it is not necessarily conscious: if you say matter has to be created, then it means you consider that there was nothing before. But there has never been nothing in the universe.

Well then I understand this; I still do not however understand how state zero would have come into being, despite contradictory wording on my part. I am unwilling and unable to believe that regardless of the absence of time that anything could exist without some cause. Why would the Universe be in a still frame at state zero? There must be some sort of reasoning behind this. Without a higher being or even random chance explanations, this argument has no real explanation for the source of matter and energy.

If you need some help to understand this, imagine that the universe is a collection of one billion switches. If the universe is empty, then all switches are at OFF. But now, think about it. If there is no god, does that mean all the switches have to be off?

But what would put the switches there; more importantly, why would they be there at all? If there is no random chance before hand that dictates that they will randomly be ON or OFF, then they cannot do so. If there is nothing to put them in the position to be ON or OFF, then once again that position cannot be realistic. In all actuality we are trying to argue the genesis of the Universe; you how it does not have to be from God, and me why it does. I am looking for your explanation for the cause of all of this; something along the lines of the Oscilliating Universe Theory is what I had in mind, although I am not saying that you must use it.

Why would they be off rather than on? Is there some kind of universal preference for nothingness? Or is it rather your human mind which imagines that by default everything must be empty or equal to zero? Does that really make sense? For example, if the universe is random, it would start with random switches, wouldn't it? And then, there would be one in two to the billionth power chance that the universe would start empty! That's absurdly unlikely now isn't it!

The problem with this is that you yet again neglect the point which I am trying to raise that things do not just exist. Again with the computer program and the like, a beginning is set and constructed by a creator, not random time and not for absolutely no reason. The tools and parts required to build the computer are not already there for no reason; they must be brought into place. Also I realize the limitations of such an analogy, and to some degree the irony (being based off of a human and his/her creation), but that still does not weaken my original point as far as I can tell.

If the universe was empty right now, couldn't I say that God exists, because it is so unlikely that the universe would start off empty that divine intervention had to empty it in some way?

No not really, because that presupposes that the light switch idea is the correct one in the first place, which there is no evidence for. We can however get back onto topic as to what the chances are of life spontaneously generating and the alternatives for Creation (and whether or not they are even plausible).

All that to reiterate that matter and energy didn't need to come from anywhere - saying so supposes that the universe's beginning wasn't the beginning of time, and it supposes that at the beginning of time there would be no matter and no energy, albeit there is no logical reason for that. The universe could perfectly start off with, as I like to put it, random junk.

It does not however explain that well or at all. Saying at the beginning of the Universe that matter and energy would not be subject to the laws they are subject to now is all great; that still does not how or why 'random junk' would be present anyways. Would it just be sitting in frame one waiting to happen? But why would it be in frame one in the first place? Suggesting that there is no reason and that it just is answers no questions whatsoever, except perhaps that you believe there are other forces at work besides what we see and notice in our studies. Again, here we are at the beginning. What caused it? Why is it there? With no explanation regarding the current forces and cognitively recognizable dimensions, we must turn to something beyond our realm of perception.

To understand this, you have to understand the exquisite difference between the laws of physics and the laws of semantics. Whereas you probably agree that we cannot apply the laws of physics to God (and christians love to point that out), it is certain that God is subject to the laws of semantics. It is nonsensical to change the meaning of words when God is involved - if a word means something, that's what it means, and you won't make it mean anything else. Thus, you could prove that the description of God is contradictory on the semantic level (for example, you could try to prove that the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory), and you would disprove God. I did such a thing when I showed that God must be bound by time, and I can perfectly imagine to do the same thing on core concepts, although it would probably be harder.

Have fun, because now I have all the time I can imagine. Ah yes, and now that we are on to the point of Christians making clear that God is not bound by physics, I might as well bring up 'God of the Gaps'. While reading this, a delicious little phrase came to mind of 'Chance of the Gaps'. Whenever something becomes highly improbable or unfeasable, the sudden answer is generally 'given an infinate amount of time it could happen!'. Granted, you Brain do not usually do this if I recall correctly, but I still find a sort of humor in those who do. But I digress, back to the matter at hand. Feel free to try and find contradictions in the description of God if you so desire. You have proven in the past that you are quite aware of what you are talking about, and I am sure the points you raise will not be as weak as some that I have seen.

It is also possible to prove God's existence, or at the very least, the existence of immaterial spirits or souls with the same level of certainty as scientific truth. To understand this, let us suppose that souls exist and convey emotions (which I find totally absurd, but that's besides the point). This means two important things:

I am not entirely sure that souls are supposed to convey emotion, but for the sake of an argument, I'll see what you have to say.

1- The soul must get input from matter: you will not feel any emotions if you can't see, feel, smell or hear anything. That input is taken from our physical senses, and therefore, we can imagine that electrical pulses representing what we see, hear, etc. are gathered and circulate through our brain. The soul must be able to read these pulses, or it can't do its job. You could imagine that the soul can read them directly without interacting with them.

I don't quite agree with this first point. It assumes that souls themselves have a direct control on a person's emotions, whereas what is generally accepted is that the soul itself is generally involved in other matters, ie. spirituality and the like.

2- However, most importantly, the soul must give output: when you feel an emotion, it can be translated, physically, as an expression on your face, as words, etc. Therefore, the soul must be able to communicate to the body information about the emotions it feels. We must then imagine that the soul will interact with matter within our brain in such a way that the brain will be able to read it and process it.

Therefore, if a soul exists, it means that studying the brain carefully will reveal "magical transitions" between two points. That is, science will trace back emotions and show that one particular transition transforms incoherent input into organized emotions in a way that is unexplainable by science. Of course, the argument is flawed, because the mystery could be solved by further science. However, as science becomes better and more precise, if the gap remains, the soul will become a scientific explanation (although I can guarantee you it won't be called a soul). Note that science always changes, and that nothing is ever certain - soul will never be a certainty, but if you can't find anything better, albeit you should be able to with the equipment you have, then you bear with it. Scientists do it all the time, as long as they feel it is practical.

There are plenty of things with little to no explanation to them at this current state and time. On the issue of whether or not souls can be felt or seen, I would turn to so called 'astral projection', which despite being directly opposed by Christianity itself I have direct connections to Christians who have experienced it first-hand. With no scientific explanation available, I will rely on these accounts which I will assume are accurate (my father and I rarely communicate any more and from what I can tell he has no intentions of lying to me; nor have I seen any signs). According to this 'source', projection can be accomplished through the proper conditioning of the body to a point of lucid relaxation, followed by focusing thought on one's own forehead. Skipping ahead to the ultimate results, there are many reports (many of them proposterous, I know, but a few reliable) of people 'flying' for sake of simplicity in visualization and observing their physical vessels. Whether or not you are willing to carry a debate on this I am currently unsure; you seem to have little spare time from what I can tell and I will simply have to rely on your next post. In any case, such an argument would most likely descend to presenting accounts and the like for each side; I am afraid it may be even less productive than the rest of the debate we are currently having. But again, it is your choice entirely.

Note that in the absence of collective consciousness, the soul could theoretically be used to create human thinking machines. If you can understand how the body communicates with the soul, then you can theoretically reproduce that interaction in a laboratory. The possibility remains that the soul will magically understand that it's being tricked, though it doesn't make that much sense in my opinion. Everything that interacts with matter is potentially useable. I therefore look forward to the day human souls will be tricked, fabricated, engineered and incorporated to highly performant machine engines in order to be eternal. Who knows, souls may even serve to create perpetual motion machines!

Doubtful. While a creative idea a person's soul supposedly retains the memories of the person's life and experiences. After that person's body becomes uninhabitable, that soul goes to one of two places which I am sure you are aware of based on my beliefs. Again though, let us get back to the topic. Arguing whether or not souls exist is one thing, wondering if they will ever be 'tricked' into machines is totally different and relies on one's beliefs alone. I think it has been clearly expressed now that you would not want me to go on into a rant explaining the purpose of a soul, so I will save us the time.

If, on the other hand, no mysterious gap is ever found, and if the algorithms behind human thinking and emotions are understood by careful study of neuronal networks, the existence of a soul will be scientifically discredited... and so will the christian God.

And if souls are proven to exist? I think we both know the answer to that. Of course once again based off of lack of reliable evidence regarding such matters an argument based on whether or not sould exist would end up in a game of presenting accounts; something I am not looking forward to by any means whatsoever.

All that to say that science isn't as weaponless against God as one may think All core concepts will be progressively destroyed, or assimilated by science, until there is no incentive at all to consider the existence of God (besides philosophical discussions which bear no consequences), or vice versa. The key idea here is that souls, and God, must interact with matter, that it must be possible to pinpoint the places where that interaction occurs, and that it may be possible to take advantage of it. If we cannot find any irregularities, then it either doesn't exist or it doesn't do anything, which is practically the same thing.

That is of course if such scenarios occur when it can be observed that no interactions occur. That is all speculation, and unless there is any support to it now, it really has no grounds. I could just as easily make a paragraph regarding what would happen if astral projection were proven true and thus souls could be observed. That field however is tricky and yet again I will say I would rather not descend to such an argument when we have at least a decent one in motion already.

Onto the probability of the creation of life.

There is one huge flaw in your argument that no one seems to have challenged: you suppose that events of combination of several proteins have a random chance of happening. That is untrue. The universe is not random. It works according to a certain set of rules, and although randomness may play a role in these rules, it is certainly not dominant.

Actually the fact that amino acids combining and reacting is not random makes life spontaneously generating even more improbable. Remember that amino acids do not simply bond with eachother; they can be absorbed, bond with other substances, etc. until the required aminos necessary for life will likely have been lost. And on to the required amino acids, one must understand that only L-amino acids are used to create life while D-amino acids are equally available. The problem with this? The two readily interact with eachother and thus it becomes incredibly difficult to get a system containing exclusively (a broad term considering there are some twenty different L-aminos alone) L-amino acids. Then there is the problem of obtainind the correct amount and type of energy to get these amino acids to react efficiantly; an at least noticably precise amount that also intensifies the problem of the amino acids reacting with other molecules. On top of all of this we have the problem of having these twenty 'correct' amino acids forming in the correct places and formations. As I have previously stated not all of the sites are necessary; about half of them are, but in these half the correct acid is pertinant for the organisms survival. Not only do you have the problems about how to get the aminos to bond correctlym, but there is also the predicament concerning how half of the bonds required will not even be peptide bonds (which are necessary, by the way). So it is not just one simple thing you must worry about, nor does the fact that these bonds are not random help the probabilities of life spontaneously generating.

You therefore calculate probabilities on the basis that all events are random. However, you do not calculate the probabilities on the basis that events AREN'T random, and that they obey to simple rules. There is a fundamental difference which may change your insanely low odds into a near certainty.

Try insanely low odds to ludicrously low odds. Again I bring up the precision of energy and surroundings necessary for aminos to react in the first place; then of course the other elements located among the acids. Whereas the actual aminos necessary for life may be prone to bond with eachother (hypothetically; this is not at all correct in all situations), you must always rule out the other interferences that would destroy one's chances of producing life.

In order to illustrate my point, I will give the example of a well known mathematical construct, which is the cellular automaton. Basically, it's an infinite (or toroidal) space with N dimensions (usually N=2), composed of cells. If N = 2, it's like a grid (or a doughnut if you opt for the toroidal structure). Each cell can have a certain number of states (alive, dead, and you can add other states at will), and the next state of a cell depends on its own state and the states of its neighbors.

The Game of Life is the most well known example: a cell can be alive or dead. If an alive cell has two or three alive neighbors, it stays alive. If a dead cell has exactly three alive neighbors, it becomes alive. In all other cases, the cell dies or remains dead. What is interesting with cellular automata such as this, is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the final state of an initial configuration. You have to run a simulation in order to find out. Therefore, seeing it in action looks very much like random junk, and you would never think that complex structures could emerge from this. However, this is wrong. A simple structure, called the glider, can move across the plane diagonally. Other bigger structures can move horizontally or vertically. Structures can create beams of gliders. A prime number generator was made. And it was proven that it was possible to make a computer in the game of life. All of this out of awfully simple rules which someone came up with on a trial and error basis. And to think there are two to the 512th power possible rules if N = 2, and 2 to the 2 to the 27th power if N = 3, that's quite a lot of possible rules for life (and we already know about awesome ones), and that's just one theory.

This does not necessarily relate to aminos and proteins, however. This entire scenario relies on the idea that there will be no outside affecting factors that could alter the results; ones such as those which I have mentioned. This is not true; if too much ultraviolet had come through the atmosphere, there would be no chance for life. Too little correct elements, same conclusion. Too many other factors affecting the results, same conclusion. There are simply too many differences between the cellular automata and molecular structures such as deoxyribosenucleic acid and ribosenucleic acid to make an accurate comparison. Add that to the fact that what I am arguing now only covers one aspect that makes life improbable when left to its own methods. Again I state that a productive form of replication is necessary that passes on information which must also be retained. The problem with amino acids is miniscule compared to other such problems which would also arise in the construction of living organisms. So far I have loosely covered the processing of energy; we'll see if I get to the rest of my argument in the near future.

All this to say that extremely simple rules are sufficient to produce unexpected, unpredictable, yet awfully complex structures. Another example is Langton's Ant. You can also look into fractals, which are superb structures made from simple equations, which are found in nature, and which have been shown to be the optimal configurations for many systems.

The problem with fractals in particular is that they are made from simple equations. Much like crystaline structures and snowflakes obviously differ in 'design' from cellular and mollecular constructions, so do fractals. Soon, most likely in this very post, I will deal with yet another sign of intelligent design, that is the code that can be found in DNA and RNA. I am confident that will express my point further and establish many other areas I have been studying recently.

All this to say that in the eventuality that our universe is a cellular automata, you can't calculate probabilities without knowing the key. This is important, because it is very possible that seemingly improbable events such as the occurring of life were in fact unavoidable consequences of SIMPLE yet overlooked rules. It's not necessarily the excessively simple rules of cellular automata. Simple yet unknown biological structures could have catalysed the process. Chemical processes which are not yet understood could bump up many probabilities.

The simple rules you speak of are by no means entirely unknown. Indeed many of them are dealt with in grotesque detail. Consider Gibbs free energy for instance. The more that is located in a molecule, the more work is required to cause a reaction to progress. While this may not necessarily be one of the simple rules you are preaching about which alter the probabilities, it certainly inhibates how often chemical reactions would occur in the first place. Admittedly, I probably could have placed this in my paragraph regarding the chances of aminos even bonding, but I felt it accomplished a slight degree more here. In any case, it goes to show that the requirements for life were a lot more exact than may be originally expected by yourself, and even perhaps by me. The unknown rules? A factor perhaps in some areas but not in others. In any case I am interested in hearing a few of these rules if you would be so kind.

In any way, it is not random. It looks random, but that's just because we don't understand enough to see the patterns and find the rules behind the first steps. This is why you have to be extremely careful when arguing that life is unlikely. Intelligent design is a gap filler and it typically exploits ignorance in order to convey religious propaganda. Sorry had to say this.

'Chance of the Gaps' is what I will bring up now for a good reason. Consider it, get angry about it, whatever you want. The truth is those of faith are not the only ones who blame instances they do not understand on other issues and instances. Also Intelligent Design is by no means a 'gap filler' as you so put it; at least if it is there has been a great deal of effort put in to further explain this 'gap filler'.

Reason is subjective. If there is a God there is a reason, because God is subjective, but if God doesn't exist, then there are no reasons for the existence of the Universe, because there is no subjectivity to speak of. Saying the universe must have been there for some reason is the same as saying God must exist, which is skipping steps.

On the issue of whether or not there are reasons regarding the creation of the Universe, let us again consider what has resulted in these 'random occurances' even with specific laws followed. We have an expansive Universe which is so precisely placed that life on this planet itself could not exist if there were to be slight differences. Then you have the life itself, which has come about in an amount of time arguably and obviously an infinate amount of time less than infinity; something that I am arguing could not happen without intelligent direction. For the topic of how the Universe seems fine-tuned for life, I will list a few notable reasons. First, consider the nuclear force constant. If there was too much, there would be no hydrogen, and the nuclei required for life would be unstable; too little and there would be nothing but hydrogen. Second, consider the Gravitational force constant. If there was too much, stars would burn too quickly and unevenly; too little and the stars would be too cool for nuclear fusion to commence. Finally (for now at least), consider the entropy level of the Universe. If it was too much, there would be no star condensation within the photogalaxies; if too little, there would not even be photogalaxies. Thus it becomes clear that conditions on Earth are not the only things required in order to sustain (and begin for that matter) life.

See above for what I said about you assuming there has been nothing at some moment. That assumption is unfounded. It is a misconception that comes from typically human thinking. If there has never been nothing, then no matter ever "appeared" with nothing to precede it (because there never has been nothing!), and your argument falls flat.

But again where does this matter originate from? It cannot simply be there for all of eternity with nothing to precede and create it, otherwise it would break laws. Unless of course this refers to the single frame of the Universe before time set things into motion, in which I will refer back to my question as to how the matter was there.

...Further note that in the eventuality that continuity, informational infinity and randomness are void concepts, the universe is either bounded as I mentioned, or cyclic.

A cyclic Universe is what I have been wondering about for some time. Having studied such a topic for a degree of time, I feel as though I am ready to combat any cyclic Universe theory which you may present. As for the bounded Universe, remember that it is currently expanding, turning space curvature into matter and the like.

All the bolded words are void of meaning outside of time. From these hints, I'll let you figure out what I think of that point.

My entire point is that time was an indirect Creation that occured when everything else was created. While it is nice to see that you can point out all of the problems with the methods I used to construct the point, I would rather you pay attention to the point itself as well. Now on to the informational proof pointing to an intelligent creator, shall we?

Consider the bonds and codes located on a single strand of DNA. I believe it is Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine. Compare the complexity located in this DNA to persay a crystalline structure. Complex you may say? Not so, considering the structure of a crystal is a single pattern repeated over and over again, much like creating a book consisting of "Please die." repeated over and over again. DNA itself is moreso like an actual book, consisting of more complext patterns which convey a sort of direction and communicate a plan in the construction of bodily materials in cells. What exactly would randomly construct something of DNA, might I ask, and what would replicate it to the point where it could ultimately end up in the first living organism? The simplistic sugars and peptide bonds creating the structure itself are one thing; the actual code which instructs a cell is a completely different other; one that can be efficiantly pointed out to suggest an intelligent designer. DNA and RNA themselves can stand as major points of complexity themselves, disregarding the chances of the correct componants coming together to form them. In any case, I am becoming weary at the moment and I will see if I can perhaps clarify this in the morning.

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no one solid Definition Of Life. People can't agree, for example, on whether or not virii are alive; they reproduce and contain genetic material to do so, but they need a host to create copies of them and do not metabolize or respond to stimuli in anything more than a simple chemical manner. There isn't an imaginary line, to the left of which things are considered non-living and to the right of which things are considered living. There is a progression.

There is a solid definition of life: a living organism reproduces, retains information, and processes energy, simple as that. The controversy surrounding the issue of whether or not virii are alive or not is one of a person's view; not a blurring line between living and non-living things. What I am trying to convey is, yet again, the improbability of the random appearance of life. If you can prove that the amino acids and the like can be assembled reasonably without incredible odds against the occurance, then you will have gained a great degree of ground.

That said, the first thing to exist which everybody would agree were alive would necessarily come from things which not everybody would say were alive... but some people would. They would certainly seem alive. The things that gave rise to those things would be even more basic. And perhaps, even furthur down the line, were pre-proteins which behaved in the way I suggested they might. Those structures would not require any energy source at all, other than the energy contained in their nuclear and molecular bonds and the kinetic energy given to them by their environment (motion, in other words). Energy would only become a factor when a protein-like structure just happened to be bombarded by heat and partially broken down by it, only to reassamble itself, according to normal physical and chemical laws, in a more advantageous configuration.

Every living organism, again, has a base degree of complexity that can be used to differentiate it from other non-living systems. If one system holds one characteristic of life but not another, then it is not living. If it holds two but not the third, then it is not living. Only if three characteristics are possessed can a said system be considered living, nothing more, nothing less (simply because these are broad characteristics to put it bluntly). We are not considering small systems here that resemble living creatures, but actual living creatures. Admittedly, the first living being was obviously even more basic than the simplest one we have today. Does that mean it requires fewer characteristics? No it does not.

Again, I'm not saying the protein structures were alive. I'm saying they eventually became alive; that they became "more" alive, in a way, with each change that resulted in a significant survival advantage.

Again though I point out the fact that there are characteristics of life which must be noticable in a system in order for that system to be considered living. Characteristics that resemble the requirements are all nice and beautiful, but they cannot be anything other than what is required and still be considered life. I realize also what you are saying is that each progression was slow, and that each characteristic of life did not necessarily come at the same time, however, I will ask you again to recognize the difference between say a simple protein and a cell; one has complex reactions that happen simultaneously or in a given order, the other does not. One reproduces by duplicating the DNA and passing on information to its next of kin, the other may crash into a protein and make that protein resemble itself. There is a difference, one that must be seen and understood completely before arguing what and what would not be considered life.

Following the universe's rapid initial expansion, the rate of expansion has been slowing. While the universe would eventually cool off too much for gravity wells to form anymore, and thus for stars to form, it doesn't seem that such a thing would happen for quite a long time. The window in which life-friendly conditions exist in the universe seems quite large indeed, though certainly not infinitely large. While a non-infinite time span means that random or semirandom chances may not necessarily be realized 100% of the time, long time spans still obviously mean that the odds are greatly increased, far above the realm of mathematical insignificance.

But whether the odds are increased to the point of where they become feasible is the issue which I am trying to convey. Referring to an above point I raised against Brain, the characteristics of the Universe are precise enough to the point where if they were different in sometimes minor ways life itself would be ultimately impossible; so would stars in some situations. Next I would like to note that there are signifigantly less planets in the Universe than what I believe is commonly conceived here on this thread. Just because our solar system contains nine (ten?) planets does not mean that all other systems contain a similar amount. In fact such an assumption shows an apparent lack of the Universe itself.

And even if you eventually explain everything from free will to the nature of the senses to everything else via science... there will still be a place for God, at the very least among those who would rather be comfortable than correct.

Likewise no matter how much evidence is presented to prove God some will simply reject it on that basis that they refuse to believe it. Christians are not the only ones who can be close-minded, you see, and the concept of God is not always the desirable fall-back for those who prefer comfort. Some hate the concept of God, for what reasons I do not know nor necessarily understand. Also always remember that many intellectuals believe in God regardless of their thirst for knowledge and their need to understand things. It is not just those afraid of knowing who believe in God.

Faith will always have a certain emotional appeal to some people, as long as people exist; and as long and people want to believe, they will. The changing location of the realm of Heaven throughout Christian history merely reflects attempts to rationalize faith. Such rationalization, however, is not necessary for faith to exist. God, the concept, is beyond everything and everything.

Tisk tisk, Aglandiir. The same can easily be said of science. So because the stars were once believed to be simply right above the Earth and they have been found not to be am I to assume that this is a rationalization for something without a base? No, I would say further information was acquired to prove that stars were farther away than what was once believed. Such concepts, religious or not, are constantly in change. That is the nature of science: it is constantly changing. Does this make it incorrect? Not at all. And also, despite the fact that the concept of God states that He is beyond all percievable rules and whatnot does not mean that the signs of His existence cannot be seen. When I say God is beyond matter and energy, note that I do not simply remain content on that issue and repeat it every time that conception is challenged. I look for support for that idea. In any case, I am back and glad to be here debating.

You're jumping to conclusions much too quickly though, who says that all life would have to be like us? There could be some aliens that could ONLY live in extremely high temperature, or vice versa, or some aliens that would not need oxygen to live, and rather breathe methane, etc. You don't know what others need to live, only what we need to live. Therefore, every planet in existance is hospitable to some sort of life, just not always us.

A valid or at the very least, imaginative point which I may have already addressed at some point during the recent past. For the possibility of other forms of life, that does not change the specific requirements of a living organism, ie. the three things which I have listed and the noticable complexity of these organisms in comparison to other systems. Assuming that every planet (which is fewer than you may think) in existence is hospitable to some form of life is an audacious comment which clearly does not consider the fact that the vast majority of planets do not even have any gases present; either that or they are too close or too far away from their star to the point where any life becomes impossible. Orbits could destroy the chances of life; supernovas; satellites; gravitational hold of the planet itself; location in the Universe, all of these things affect the chances of life, and immediately elliminate the possibilities for the majority of planets to support life.

And once again, I didn't overexaggerate how many planets are actually in existance-- I severely understated the actualy amount of planets, because as far as we know, the number is much too high to comprehend. But, we could go with what you say and assume that one planet in every galaxy can support our life, as in, human life-- (there are several even in our solar system that could through a process called terraforming) now-- how many galaxies are there in the universe? Still tons. And we're still a one in whatever the hell million chance-- not very good odds, which is why I believe we're purely coincidental.
Why would God create trillions upon zillions upon fring-ging-gillions of planets and then put life on one? What are the others? Works in progress?

You overestimate the amount of planets in the Universe. Our solar system is not an accurate base to estimate how many planets may be located in other systems across the Universe. In truth, there are fewer planets than what you have stated to where it can be more accurately stated that the actual number is closer to one planet to every thousand stars. There are certain conditions that must be right in order for planets to form, you must remember, including sufficiant material, a relatively safe position in the stars gravitational hold, etc.. Planets themselves are by no means common; planets with a degree of variety in the gases they retain (or even any gases at all for that matter) are even more rare.

As for why God would place other planets in the Universe, it should be noted that the balance things are in at this current state and time is very delicate. As I have stated to Brain in regards to the precision of the Universe and how its specific settings allow life, or even stars for that matter, to exist, the chances of life are by no means restricted to the planet they are on, or the solar system they are in.

[The Muffin Man]

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR BIG FACELESS DEITY SOROVIS WHY THE **** CAN'T YOU LET THE DAMN TOPIC DIE!?!?!

You have no PROVED ****. You have not CONVERTED anyone. You have not done any favors to yourself, the board, or your religion. Walk away, and leave the topic ALONE. NOBODY CARES. I thought the topic being inactive for nearly an entire week without any posts would clue you in we ALL stopped caring.

[Rudoku]

tl;dr

Do you expect someone to read all this in the middle of the night? I mean, thanks for trying to keep me busy until I'm off work, but damn...

[Leon-IH]

*punches sorovis* dude, this thread is dead, nobody has blocked any of my arguements since I joined this ****in thing (well, none of my proper arguements) you haven't converted anyone who has half a brain (and if they didn't have half a brain i'm glad theyre not atheists anymore, idiots put us to shame).

Congratulations you win "persistant moron of the year" award, now go eat some cheese, try some alcohol that isn't brandy, gamble a few bucks, and sleep through 1 minute of church - you'd be better off.

[Sorovis]

*punches sorovis* dude, this thread is dead, nobody has blocked any of my arguements since I joined this ****in thing (well, none of my proper arguements) you haven't converted anyone who has half a brain (and if they didn't have half a brain i'm glad theyre not atheists anymore, idiots put us to shame).

Read what I edited into my last post. Then of course read I think my post before that, regarding yourself and your arguments. Now I may have missed a few, and I will go back and check, but from what I have seen my general response to your points is the same now as it was then. Secondly regarding the state of the thread, I asked it to be kept open even though I would be absent for a week. If anybody dropped it due to lack of opposition from myself, then now is the time to start it back up. As far as I can tell I will be here for many days ahead without another interuption.

[Sorovis]

The comment itself was directed towards Brain who is quite welcome to respond to it at any time, provided the topic is still open. In all realism, I posted it late in the night so I could rest before having to return to the debate again.

[The Muffin Man]

FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR BIG FACELESS DEITY SOROVIS WHY THE **** CAN'T YOU LET THE DAMN TOPIC DIE!?!?!

You have not PROVED ****. You have not CONVERTED anyone. You have not done any favors to yourself, the board, or your religion. Walk away, and leave the topic ALONE. NOBODY CARES. I thought the topic being inactive for nearly an entire week without any posts would clue you in we ALL stopped caring.



Because he needs to see the truth.

[Sorovis]

I enjoy debating and based off of Brain's and Aglandiir's periodic responces I assume at least something similar from them. If you don't want to debate, then just leave the thread. My presence here and my interest and flair for arguments should not be any inhibation to you, likewise yours should not be to me. Honestly, can we just go our seperate ways and agree to disagree?

[The Muffin Man]

I enjoy debating and based off of Brain's and Aglandiir's periodic responces I assume at least something similar from them. If you don't want to debate, then just leave the thread. My presence here and my interest and flair for arguments should not be any inhibation to you, likewise yours should not be to me. Honestly, can we just go our seperate ways and agree to disagree?

You just like pretending you're right.

Admit it. You don't want to argue. In your mind you think you're right anyhow. You just get your rocks off telling yourself we're all stupid heathens.

[Sorovis]

Wait, you believe in evolution, but not from "monkies to humans"? How can you make that differentiation?

Quite technically apes and humans are believed to have the same descendants. Saying 'monkeys to humans' is not entirely accurate, as humans did not originate from modern day primates by any means.

Plus, a pterodactyl is NOT a bird. Archeopteryx and Protoavis are the early decendants of birds, and were not related to pterodactyls.

In the early times when the Bible was written the term 'bird' referred essentially to every flying creature, regardless of whether the creature in question was a bat or a bird. The modern day method of phylogeny, remember, were not always present throughout history.

[RedStarWarrior]

Closed due to lack of intelligent conversation from certain members.

[Zak]

Archived due to hilarity.