Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604136 -

DieCommie said:
MisterPervy said:
You don't know what matter is.

Matter, which is not even a real foundation in physics, requires atoms.

Antimatter does not.



In his defense, it is confusing for sure.  Calling it anti-"matter" is a bit of a misnomer.  But language evolves organically and is not necessarily internally consistent.  The math on the other hand is, and that is why math is the language of physics and science.  Anti-"matter" was named as such by a human but the concept was found in the math and then observed in nature.  Mathematically and fundamentally its simply a particle with the same properties but opposite charge from the particles we observe regularly.  Enough of it could be considered "matter" in the colloquial sense, but a single positron is hard to justify as matter.  (Photons are their own anti particle and they dont have any mass.)


From my idea of matter, it is a collection of atoms. A positron is a particle which is the antiparticle of an electron. Particles on their own are not matter but a sub component. Although I guess it's not always the case.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: Shroomin Capote]
    #20604148 -

Shroomin Capote said:
:thisfuckinguy:

HAHAHAH!

idk how this thread ended up here


:lolsy: Well we are talking about science, so it was bound to go on a tangent. It seems like religious people here are the minority therefore we haven't really gone off topic into the theology perspective.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604150 -

then lets start. 

Jesus....


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604161 -

mtlmike90 said:
:lolsy: Well we are talking about science, so it was bound to go on a tangent. It seems like religious people here are the minority therefore we haven't really gone off topic into the theology perspective.


You just want to tell creationists they are wrong and that evolution is right, admit it. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604168 -

I agree, I would not consider a fundamental particle matter.  I would have trouble calling a lone atom matter.  But the atoms made up of antiparticles are still atoms (even if called anti-atoms) and a collection of them would still be matter (even if called anti-matter), in my mind.

In the end though, it doesn't matter for the reasons we posted.  Matter is ill defined.  Mass, energy and observable properties are sufficient to explaining both kinds of particles.

And back to the original reason this was brought up... There is no fundamental reason in science that these particles cannot spring out of "nothing" (non-matter).  There are conservation laws that are observed to hold and thus presumed to limit this process.  But as long as the conserved quantities stay conserved, particles can spring out of non-matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604169 -

Question #1.....I'm not religious what so ever. For me, God = Universe and/Or God is a being (or several beings) that created this thing we call "reality/universe", which is actually just a simulation of sorts, or something created purely for novelty. Maybe "it" "injected" its awareness/consciousness into the reality it created to experience everything there is to experience in this reality from various perspectives


#2....Evolution, yes, fact. Everything is constantly doing so. Just because evolution is indeed happening doesn't mean there is no creator though :shrug: .



#3....Why can't it be both? Sure science points towards life here on this rock evolving from the ol' primordial soup. But that doesn't negate the chance of there being a creator of the universe/multiverse.



#4....I'm all for science and a scientific approach to things... but I think one could believe in something creating the universe, and still follow/trust/use science.






I've always been a skeptic about things, even called bullshit on the "god" thing when I was 4 years old, I had questions and didn't like the answers the church had. I never once believed in Santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy or anything like that :lol: , always been very skeptical about things unless I experience it directly my self .....

Everything in the poll was very black & white choices, very polarized...and I know science is like that, it should be, we need to have a scientific approach to things otherwise we would never really get anywhere. But at the same time, I can't help but keep an open mind about things and I like to entertain different ideas about this thing we call reality.

One of those ideas would give room for there to be a creator...not necessarily the old dude in the sky, which is just an anthropomorphism anyways, but some intelligent "being/thing", something we couldn't even begin to recognize or comprehend created this reality/universe so "it" could experience something "other". Or maybe purely for novelty, and there's all sorts of other uni or multiverses much different from ours out there, where maybe "life" as we know it can't reside but they offer something completely novel that this universe/multiverse/reality never could.

I mean if we ever have the means of running a simulation of a "reality", or making a creation where the beings/things in it were self conscious, I think we would do so....maybe this has happened already and we're in it? Maybe the creator(s) too are in a simulation, and so on, like russian nesting dolls, simulations within simulations.

Or maybe all there is is consciousness, feeding back into itself creating "this" creation/reality, consciousness = god....which is actually just some "program" being ran in some other space/timeline .






-OM


.


--------------------

Edited by openmind (09/23/14 01:04 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: openmind]
    #20604200 -

openmind said:
#3....Why can't it be both? Sure science points towards life here on this rock evolving from the ol' primordial soup. But that doesn't negate the chance of there being a creator of the universe/multiverse.



It cant be both because the notion that god purposefully made or designed humans is one of the main reasons people believe in god.  To feel special, immortal and to alleviate their death anxiety.  The theory of evolution by natural selection (and mutation) explicitly appeals to random mutations.  If you consider that a god is doing the mutating you are making up your own hypothesis, one that is not even considered in science do to lack of testable predictions.

The notion that god simply created the universe in order to create life is a defense invented only after evolution by natural selection blew the old standard of god out of the water.  Its an ad-hoc patch to a unsubstantiated position.

openmind said:
#4....I'm all for science and a scientific approach to things... but I think one could believe in something creating the universe, and still follow/trust/use science.




Of course.  As a free person you can pick and choose to accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't.  You can do the same with faith and religion.  Most people do this. 

Personally, I don't want to.  I want to hold science as a high standard.  And by "science" I mean the philosophy of science, not specific scientific theories.  I want to hold that all conclusions are tentative with respect to new evidence.  And with that in mind, there is really no place for belief.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604208 -

We are all in......................THE MATRIX! :eek:


--------------------
:sunny:“Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.” -Hunter S. Thompson

“One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly becoming the author of something beautiful even if it is only a floating ash.”  -Norman Maclean:sunny:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: PatrickKn]
    #20604215 -

PatrickKn said:
mtlmike90 said:
:lolsy: Well we are talking about science, so it was bound to go on a tangent. It seems like religious people here are the minority therefore we haven't really gone off topic into the theology perspective.


You just want to tell creationists they are wrong and that evolution is right, admit it. :lol:


Hahaha no, I want them to tell me why they have their beliefs and what evidence there is that we were created. There is far more scientific evidence that the first cells arose from simple biochemistry. And there have been experiments that show biomolecules can be synthesized in environments such as the early earth. So I want to know what evidence there is. The bible doesn't count, we all know the earth is way over 6,000 years old. There are no burning talking bushes, and if dude had visions he probably was hallucinating.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604237 -

mtlmike90 said:
... we all know the earth is way over 6,000 years old. There are no burning talking bushes, and if dude had visions he probably was hallucinating.


I think that is a good point believers too quickly dismiss.  This is how the christian god is defined.  Evidence contradicts these claims.  Thus evidence contradicts the christian god.  Its that easy.  The christian god is defined to have created a global flood.  Evidence shows there was never a global flood.  That evidence implicitly contradicts the christian god.  The ancient greek god was defined as throwing lightening from mt. olympus.  Evidence shows lightening exists all over the world.  That evidence implicitly contradicts zeus.

All gods are shown to be incompatible with evidence in this way, except for the ad-hoc god of the gaps.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: openmind]
    #20604242 -

openmind said:
Question #1.....I'm not religious what so ever. For me, God = Universe and/Or God is a being (or several beings) that created this thing we call "reality/universe", which is actually just a simulation of sorts, or something created purely for novelty. Maybe "it" "injected" its awareness/consciousness into the reality it created to experience everything there is to experience in this reality from various perspectives


#2....Evolution, yes, fact. Everything is constantly doing so. Just because evolution is indeed happening doesn't mean there is no creator though :shrug: .



#3....Why can't it be both? Sure science points towards life here on this rock evolving from the ol' primordial soup. But that doesn't negate the chance of there being a creator of the universe/multiverse.



#4....I'm all for science and a scientific approach to things... but I think one could believe in something creating the universe, and still follow/trust/use science.






I've always been a skeptic about things, even called bullshit on the "god" thing when I was 4 years old, I had questions and didn't like the answers the church had. I never once believed in Santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy or anything like that :lol: , always been very skeptical about things unless I experience it directly my self .....

Everything in the poll was very black & white choices, very polarized...and I know science is like that, it should be, we need to have a scientific approach to things otherwise we would never really get anywhere. But at the same time, I can't help but keep an open mind about things and I like to entertain different ideas about this thing we call reality.

One of those ideas would give room for there to be a creator...not necessarily the old dude in the sky, which is just an anthropomorphism anyways, but some intelligent "being/thing", something we couldn't even begin to recognize or comprehend created this reality/universe so "it" could experience something "other". Or maybe purely for novelty, and there's all sorts of other uni or multiverses much different from ours out there, where maybe "life" as we know it can't reside but they offer something completely novel that this universe/multiverse/reality never could.

I mean if we ever have the means of running a simulation of a "reality", or making a creation where the beings/things in it were self conscious, I think we would do so....maybe this has happened already and we're in it? Maybe the creator(s) too are in a simulation, and so on, like russian nesting dolls, simulations within simulations.

Or maybe all there is is consciousness, feeding back into itself creating "this" creation/reality, consciousness = god....which is actually just some "program" being ran in some other space/timeline .






-OM


.


Thanks for your input. And I too believe that if there is a god it is the universe, the sun and the earth. Not some sentient omnipotent being. But my poll was made to be simple. I could have put more thought into it, but I just wanted to simply know who believes in god who doesn't and do they accept science as giving us truth instead of ignorance. That is all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604250 -

I think, again, a lot of this shit is semantics.  purpose and meaning all only constructs of language and serve no function outside the realm of language, imo. 

"As a free person you can pick and choose to accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't.  You can do the same with faith and religion.  Most people do this."

watchu talking bout willis?  how is he choosing to accept or reject science?


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie]
    #20604266 -

DieCommie said:
mtlmike90 said:
... we all know the earth is way over 6,000 years old. There are no burning talking bushes, and if dude had visions he probably was hallucinating.


I think that is a good point believers too quickly dismiss.  This is how the christian god is defined.  Evidence contradicts these claims.  Thus evidence contradicts the christian god.  Its that easy.  The christian god is defined to have created a global flood.  Evidence shows there was never a global flood.  That evidence implicitly contradicts the christian god.  The ancient greek god was defined as throwing lightening from mt. olympus.  Evidence shows lightening exists all over the world.  That evidence implicitly contradicts zeus.

All gods are shown to be incompatible with evidence in this way, except for the ad-hoc god of the gaps.


What is this ad-hoc god you keep mentioning? I'm actually curious.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: Shroomin Capote]
    #20604289 -

Shroomin Capote said:
I think, again, a lot of this shit is semantics.  purpose and meaning all only constructs of language and serve no function outside the realm of language, imo. 

"As a free person you can pick and choose to accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't.  You can do the same with faith and religion.  Most people do this."

watchu talking bout willis?  how is he choosing to accept or reject science?


Actually that qoute is very true and is a very integral part of human behavior which pisses me the fuck off. Humans really only accept things that appeal to them when they need it. ANd it is huge part why most people are hypocrites especially the religious folk. One sec they can reject something as false but when circumstances change they can turn face so quickly and accept it as truth.

Edited by MachineElf1.618 (09/23/14 01:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604314 -

"Like yeah god created everything all life and everyone." He said.

"Well what about homosexuals?" She asked.

"Oh god didnt create them." He said.

"What about Marijuana and other drugs that come from plants?" She asked

"Oh God didn't create them either, it's the work of the Devil" He said.

"So did God still create homosexuals and drugs?" She asked.

(No Answer).


You have no idea how much things like this happen its very comical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: DieCommie] * 2
    #20604322 -

DieCommie said:
mtlmike90 said:
... we all know the earth is way over 6,000 years old. There are no burning talking bushes, and if dude had visions he probably was hallucinating.


I think that is a good point believers too quickly dismiss.  This is how the christian god is defined.  Evidence contradicts these claims.  Thus evidence contradicts the christian god.  Its that easy.  The christian god is defined to have created a global flood.  Evidence shows there was never a global flood.  That evidence implicitly contradicts the christian god.  The ancient greek god was defined as throwing lightening from mt. olympus.  Evidence shows lightening exists all over the world.  That evidence implicitly contradicts zeus.

All gods are shown to be incompatible with evidence in this way, except for the ad-hoc god of the gaps.


If we take religious texts to be literal, which many deeply religious people do, then it's easy to point at it and say it's wrong. This is the wrong way to look at religious mythology in my opinion. I personally don't think most of it is meant to be taken as complete literal truth. I mean, that much is obvious. But it's just far too easy to point at religious mythology and say it's all bullshit, when a lot of it is metaphorical and contradictory in it's nature. It's the realm of philosophy and story telling for sure, and people take it to be fact instead.

I think there is a lot of meaning in religious mythology, but it gets bastardized when people try to prove it as fact or fiction. Trying to prove that god is incompatible with given evidence - to me - is like trying to prove that any other figure of the imagination isn't compatible with the world we live in. It's a futile effort, completely pointless.

I suppose it's not completely pointless given that people legitimately believe it. I suppose some people can be convinced that their beliefs are questionable with enough evidence as well, which is where I think the argument should stay. Trying to convince someone that evolution is a real process is easy. Trying to convince him that a figment of the imagination doesn't exist is much more difficult, because for all purposes, it does exist within their mind and their world view. The God of the Gaps you describe exists for this very reason, and will continue to exist so long as religion is a real part of the culture we live in. The meaning of the word 'god' will merely change with every iteration.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604329 -

DieCommie said:
openmind said:
#3....Why can't it be both? Sure science points towards life here on this rock evolving from the ol' primordial soup. But that doesn't negate the chance of there being a creator of the universe/multiverse.



It cant be both because the notion that god purposefully made or designed humans is one of the main reasons people believe in god.


What if it/god had no purpose, this creation of "reality" (everything that is) was purely for novelty and life is one of the novel things that has arisen?

My idea of god has nothing to do with "god" purposefully creating or designing life, humans, the planet, or anything in particular, or even having any sort of roll in the unfolding of the "creation" beyond being the one/thing that designed it and/or set it into being....rather my idea of god is something more abstract, as if god only created a box of novelty that continues to evolve and change infinitely, humans and this life thing so happens to be one of the novelties that's occurred.



I dunno...I'm stoned and rambling :smirk: :stoner: .





-OM


.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ultimate Science vs. Creationism Debate [Re: MachineElf1.618]
    #20604368 -

mtlmike90 said:
"Like yeah god created everything all life and everyone." He said.

"Well what about homosexuals?" She asked.

"Oh god didnt create them." He said.

"What about Marijuana and other drugs that come from plants?" She asked

"Oh God didn't create them either, it's the work of the Devil" He said.

"So did God still create homosexuals and drugs?" She asked.

(No Answer).


You have no idea how much things like this happen its very comical.


never heard that before. 

anyway, I think that most religions are way too far removed from their origins (time/place/culture/mindset/knowledge of the world/etc...) to really grasp.  I mean we can say the bible is not meant to be read literally (my view), but we cant know.  especially considering the history of the bible and its author....ugh....


--------------------
:leaf::leaf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Biblical Creation Museum MagicalMystery 1,048 5 10/16/05 05:56 PM
by chinacat72
* The debate of religion Nexus555 841 7 01/12/06 06:44 PM
by blissedout
* Penn and Tell - Bullshit! - Creationism freddurgan 1,335 13 03/01/05 09:23 PM
by SHiZNO
* America = Amaruka (not from Amerigo V.) kotik 10,353 10 03/10/06 10:08 AM
by Charles
* My First Casing, PICS!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Geordi_La_Forge 5,263 89 09/22/04 02:00 AM
by Randolph_Carter
* The "ultimate" high....
( 1 2 all )		 niteowl 2,093 31 03/16/05 07:28 PM
by hAGLUND
* 100 amazing science facts & factoids: which one amazes you most?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AsanteM 8,670 71 02/07/10 03:51 PM
by Mr.Pink
* Dreams V.S. Reality and foolish choices, any help apreciated
( 1 2 all )		 ZippoZM 2,333 35 03/21/06 12:21 AM
by Krishna

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
2,866 topic views. 9 members, 235 guests and 95 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.