|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 21, 2004 1:00:47 GMT -5
I'd also hope Magonus, that you weren't overhauling your whole belief system after reading one single book on comparative religions. It is probably a good book, but don't stop at one. every author is going to offer a different spin or presentation. The material will probably start overlapping, but that just means the theories are sound enough to be considrred relevant by more than one person. Don't stop after one book, that's bad research.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 21, 2004 20:54:17 GMT -5
That's alright, he's lying anyways.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 23, 2004 21:23:45 GMT -5
Hey all, sorry for the length before response, busy weekend. First, definitions. Yes, I'm aware that there are differing definitions for the word faith. I was pointing out the connotation that I was using. As far as "all those" religions having holes, the other two were Judaism (which, at its source, doesn't have holes) and Buddhism, which, from what I've read, is more a philosophy than a true religion. As far as Christianity being hole-ridden, please, give me some examples. Now, on to Occam's Razor. First off, I'm sure that we can all agree that science does not deal in "luck". Probability and statistics are very important. There are a very large number of factors contributing to having a planet capable of supporting life. Some of these are: galaxy type, galaxy location, star size, star age, planet size, O2 level in the atmosphere the list goes on. Of these factors (all of which are necessary for the formation of life, assuming spontaneous generation is possible) the greatest probability of any one planet having any one feature is 1/2, with some being as low as 1/10,000. You figure out the probablity of a planet having all of these, it figures out to about 1/10e-99. Given that astonomers estimate a maximum of about 10e23 planets, that leaves the odds of any planet being capable of supporting life end up about 1/10e76. Not very good odds. Then there's the whole spontaneous generation problem. What's a more logical explanation, that all of this happened completely by random, or that there was intelligent design of some sort? To give an example... Let's say you don't believe in the existance of mechanics (don't know why someone wouldn't, but you guys have plenty of experience not believing in what is real). Near your house, there is a junk yard with, oh, lets say, 1,000 cars, all of which have a few pieces that work, but the rest of the car is totally beyond repair, and a garage, which is always empty. You visit that junkyard once a month, but no one else ever has. Inbetween visits, some mechanics come to the junkyard secretly and take the good parts from the cars, putting them together to build one working car. They then put it in the garage with the keys in the ignition, fill the gas tank, and close the door. You didn't see any of this. About a day later, a tornado comes through town. The next day, you go to the junkyard, open the garage, and see the completed car. You get in and turn it on and it runs perfectly. You, since you don't believe in mechanics, assume that the tornado must've torn through the junkyard and randomly assembled this working car, placed it in the garage with the keys in the ignition and a full tank of gas and closed the door. What sort of at all intelligent person would believe it was totally chance that built that car? On a final note, no, I didn't overhaul my whole belief system based upon that book. That was but one factor. And as far as reading more books, I plan on doing so eventually, just not sure when I'll get the chance. And Valvilis, someone seems mighty defensive about anything I say. Maybe getting upset because you find yourself questioning your dogma? -Magonus
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 23, 2004 23:05:22 GMT -5
To give an example... Let's say you don't believe in the existance of mechanics (don't know why someone wouldn't, but you guys have plenty of experience not believing in what is real). Near your house, there is a junk yard with, oh, lets say, 1,000 cars, all of which have a few pieces that work, but the rest of the car is totally beyond repair, and a garage, which is always empty. You visit that junkyard once a month, but no one else ever has. Inbetween visits, some mechanics come to the junkyard secretly and take the good parts from the cars, putting them together to build one working car. They then put it in the garage with the keys in the ignition, fill the gas tank, and close the door. You didn't see any of this. About a day later, a tornado comes through town. The next day, you go to the junkyard, open the garage, and see the completed car. You get in and turn it on and it runs perfectly. You, since you don't believe in mechanics, assume that the tornado must've torn through the junkyard and randomly assembled this working car, placed it in the garage with the keys in the ignition and a full tank of gas and closed the door. What sort of at all intelligent person would believe it was totally chance that built that car? Okay, Magonus, good job. Of the few things that can be used to pull me out of the shadows and into a debate, it's the tornado analogy. Although I have to give you props for throwing it at us in a manner that I've yet to see. I don't know if you've heard it elsewhere or made it up, but the ninja mechanic was quite a twist. So about that tornado. There are several major differences between a tornado and evolution, and I shall name them thus: - Evolution has transpired over 4.5 BY here on Earth and 15-16 BY (best recollection from ISB - someone please correct me if I'm wrong) in the Universe. If here on Earth, we were to apply the tornado analogy, then each selection pressure would be one tornado. Do you know HOW MANY individual pressures have changed one species or another over the 4.5 BY, Magonus? I'd never hazard a blind guess because I'm sure it would be drastically insufficent, but let us accept for now that it would be a whole freaking buttload. Evolutionary theory has a lot more continual "tweaks" than one major cacaphony of function via extreme happenstance. We go a bit deeper than that, and so should you.
- Much like the analogy of "a million monkeys randomly banging on a keyboard would eventually produce Hamlet," you also make the error that we believe evolution has wound its way through time with a purpose to produce the Earth/Man. Let it be said plainly and resound through these boards - evolution does no such thing. Evolution is the response to pressure. Nothing more, nothing less. Evolution doesn't think "Hmmm this whole quadruped thing has been kinda neat and all, but it'd be all kinds a bitchin if we cut that in half! Make it so!" - to the contrary, in fact; evolution does not think. Your analogy of the tornado producing a car presupposes that we think the universe has be working toward this ultimate goal, us. We are not so arrogant. A car only has meaning to us because we have created the concept and given it definition. The monkeys might produce one line, ten lines, or the entire work that we recognize as Hamlet, but how many other "works" are they creating that don't satisfy our artificial selection pressure to see Hamlet in random monkey type?
- Bringing this to the Universe level, do you even comprehend just how frellin HUGE the universe is? How small and insignificant a spec of dust this planet is on the GALACTIC level alone? Isn't it more absurd to believe that in all the possible chances for planets to form, that NOT ONE OTHER has experienced similarly favorable conditions to support life? And don't forget that we're defining life as Earth knows it. Evolution has produced bizarre but functional adaptations all across this tiny globe alone, so it is absolutely no stretch that it would be capable of accounting for some other kind of life elsewhere.
- Also, we can allow for the imperfect adaptations that abound in evolutionary products, such as a brain that has to waste processing power to flip an inexplicably inverted image from our eyes, an appendix that ruptures from lack of use, a female reproductive system that allows for deadly abdominal pregnancies, and a cocyx that does nothing but break and cause pain when you slip on your skates. This would be equivalent to a gas pump that decides to explode occasionally, a push-start motor, or headlights that project light via a series of five pointless mirrors. Sounds like the work of jury-rigged adaptation, or one sadistic, drunk, Yugo engineer.
~Roger
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Feb 23, 2004 23:44:58 GMT -5
Just wanted to say that O2 is not necessary for life. Human life, yes, but not all life. I'm not going to be your teacher though, do some research to find out about it. Science is fun.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 24, 2004 0:24:08 GMT -5
Maggie,
Do you think that it could be that since you've yet to post anything of measurable worth here and yet continue to talk yourself up as though your brilliance should be self evident that perhaps I find your dull wit, poor logic, and constant abuse of reality a bit... well, something left to be desired? You're wrong, you get caught, you evade. You lie, you get caught, you evade. You recycle arguments that have been defeated time and time again, but since you only did half your homework, you still think they are good ideas. Do you think you are something new and novel? Do you really feel there haven't been millions of people just like you with the same flawed logic, the same poor tactics, identical in all these, as well as your other personal short comings? It is exactly your type of intellectual laziness and lack of personal responsibility that allows Christainity and other strands of stupidity to run rampant in America and around the world. The others put up with you out of some sort of PC obligation - an obligation I myself am free from.
You're here for no reason, you have nothing to offer and you cannot seem to finish a sentance without saying something either horrifically illogical, blatantly untrue, or just all around obnoxious and completely without purpose. If you're so smart, perhaps you can tell me why I should bother with you.
I'm not being defensive, you've yet to make a single decent argument for your case, there's nothing to defend against - I simply think you're an idiot of impressive calibur. And I am without reason to not share that fact.
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 24, 2004 10:48:22 GMT -5
Valv - If you don't like what I have to say, skip any post with my name in front of it. It isn't hard. Also, you keep talking shit about me, but you have yet to point out the abounding flaws of my arguments. You basically argue that my logic is flawed because I'm a) Myself b) a Christian No more "attacking the person" (amazing how often this fallacy is used... not just by you, but by lots of people).
Raven - The statistics and factors I pointed out were for the possibility of the chemical reactions necessary to form life to take place, not the formation of human life (which, according to evolution, would be the greatest "mishap in the system" ever). And regardless of if it were possible for life to form under differing conditions, I doubt you could get a probability higher than 1/10e50 or so (after accounting for the number of planets), which is still infintesimly small. And as for the tornado, true, one tornado wouldn't do much. Let's say there were 2 million tornadoes (geological time is slow, say 1 for every thousand years before life spawned on earth (not positive on my dates... 2 billion sound right for the age of the universe before life?)). Since science has shown us, statistically, that the type writer analogy would not work (not with a million monkeys for a million years), then we can assume (again, going statistically, since science doesn't do "luck") that the working car would not form (car being analogous to initial life, not humans). And, once again, the stats against life forming are significantly more than the stats against the car forming.
-Magonus
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Feb 24, 2004 12:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 24, 2004 13:28:51 GMT -5
Maggie,
I'm not attacking you to discredit your argumnets, I'm attacking you because you have no arguments. String together something intelligible sometime and you'll be amazed how everyone's responces will change. And if memory serves, you were the first to initiate the ad hominems on this board... good one, dude.
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 24, 2004 15:08:00 GMT -5
*sniff sniff* What's that smell? Oh, it's just the cancerous odor of burning strawmen. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Feb 25, 2004 17:41:09 GMT -5
Alright, on the spontaneous generation thing. Magonus' arguement is not taking everything into account. First, you estimate for the probability of life is incredibly flawed. By counting the type of galaxy, location, size, age, planet size..... you are counting many factors multiple times. Galaxies are classified by their size, location, shape, content, star arrangement, the list goes on. Since you are retro-actively counting each of these, you'd be counting O2 content (for example) hundreds of times. So, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say the probability is 1E50. Second, the universe is not in a constant state. Just because we estimate there are 10E23 planets now, does mean there have always been that many. Over the 8-12 BY that the universe has existed, an incredible number of plants have been both created and destroyed. New galaxy's and solar systems form and are destroyed continuously. Also, planets are not static figures either, they are continually changing. Even if a planet now in inhospitable, it doesnt mean it always was. You have forgotten to factor in time to your equation. on the conservative side, we can say that out of all the planets there is only one opportunity for life every second (when in reality it would be much higher). 1E50 / 1E14 seconds /1E23 planets = 1E13. Third, you are only considering life as we know it. You are also assuming that there are only a few combinations that can form life. Since you can assume some of your numbers, i'll take the liberty of assume that there are billions of combinations of things that would create life. Now, lets say, since there are 1E23 planets, each being unique, there should be some sort of life that can live on each, be it intelligent or not. Now there is a 1E50 chance that there are 2 planets which are exactly the same, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt again, and go say 1E13 variations of any sort of life out there. Now, according to my calculations ( 1E13 / 1E1) that gives us a 1::1 chance that life exists somewhere. YES THATS RIGHT, A 1-TO-1 CHANCE. hmmmm.... anyone else convinced? ? oh yea, and thats not even consdering the possibilities of other dimensions, or of a universe(s) that may have existed before the Big Bang EDIT : and another thing, this also assumes a finite universe
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 25, 2004 18:33:16 GMT -5
I assume Maggie won't care. He knew when he ripped those numbers off that he was getting them from a horribly illegitimate apologist website. He also knew when he did it that the numbers were horribly inaccurate - again, that's why they had to come from some fundie twit and not a real source of information.
Now, what could make someone knowingly and purposefully use information they know is wrong to make an argument? That's right, they know they're wrong to begin with. I can see how it might be frusterating to have all the facts stacked up against you, so the obvious course of action is the one mainstream religions (and lesser ones as well) have been taking for millenia... lies and deceit! Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 25, 2004 18:35:38 GMT -5
Don't go fuckin with a guy in calc 2 yo, he'll mess you up! An excellent post! Oh, but if only we knew who made it! Woe be to your shroud of anonymity! Whoever it is...I bet they're in the hardest class at MSU!
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 27, 2004 3:23:48 GMT -5
PCK 117 Packaging for non-packaging majors?
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 27, 2004 10:42:49 GMT -5
1st, on the website that I got the numbers from, his references all seemed to be in order. Was unaware that scientific publications were so damn inaccurate these days.
As far as other forms of life being able to form, that's once again going out on a branch. It's another non-provable theory. Same with the universe being infinite and the multi-universe theory. Neither of those can be tested in any way (nor do they even have any supporting evidence, unless you want to count a Crichton novel as scientific now), hence it can be nothing more than an assumption.
And, yet again Valvie, you assume a hell of a lot about me without knowing me. Repeatedly calling someone a liar with nothing to back it up tends to get really old, really fast. And if I have carried out ad hominem in the past, 1) sorry 2) that justifies you using it? That's logical. (also, could you link to where I used it, please? I honestly don't remember).
As for your numbers AU, you're making a damn lot of assumptions there. I made one, given that the conditions necessary for the formation of life wouldn't necessarily occur continuously, with the constant changes undergoing planets (especially early in their history).
-Magonus
|
|