Jesus Camp Trailer

[<ankh>]

The problem is ofc that no matter how much we ask for proof from these alternative theories, we never get it, whilst science continues to evolve and provide more and more proof making it become ever stronger.

Exactly, but thats why discussing it might be one way to more understand how religious people think rather than getting a proof of their gods existence.

/Ankh

[Luz]

religious people dont think

their mind is tied up and wraped up around myths, they need no proof. So no proof you offer will matter to them. Nothing can change their minds however solid proof you offer. Its stupid imo, it hold the world back and does not make the best of what we as humans could be.

[Cromcruaich]

Hi Gand,

I think it is brave of you to come on here, be in the minority, and argue your beliefs, so hats off to you there.

I want to try and identify exactly what it is about evolution that you do not accept, which you've really not responded to.

Let me ask some questions.

1) Do you accept that all life on earth uses a common genetic code based on RNA and DNA which in turn ultimately decides its phenotype (minus any phenotypic changes accrued during the life time of the organism)?

2) Do you accept that this genetic code is passed down from generation to generation (inherited)?

3) Do you accept that mutations within this genetic code, lead to phenotypic differences between members of the same species?

Other less important bumf
Actually that will do for now, more to follow after initial response. I really want to pin down exactly where you feel this overarching truism called evolution fails. Actually, I quite dislike using the term evolution - as its a huge bag of ideas which really need to be read or understood, and it makes it too easy for creationists to dismiss as no different a theory from creationism, which has absolutely no supportable and verifiable evidence.

Also, rather than giving a link, do as I have, and in your own words, explain how you understand that the current species you see today have arisen. It really is the creationists who should be defending their theories, and not those who believe in the many mechanisms that have brung about the species we have on this planet today.

On another note I dont find the who made the universe arguments very useful, theyve never gone anywhere while ive been talking about it and never will, however on this small point about creationism I think headway can be made.

[Genedril]

To be fair Lair, Jupi asked about life rather than intelligent life.

Also the premise that 'they haven't found us yet' therefore they can't be out there works on the assumption that any life out there would be significantly more advanced than us & able to travel between galaxys & get here; would be able to physically withstand the rigours of doing such; would want to meet us; would actually recognise us as intelligent beings; would be able to communicate with us if they wanted to & that we could understand their attempts at doing so as communication.

However, that's for a different thread.

Faith & belief are generally hard to explain (so kudos to Gandelf for giving it a go). I've no problem with people having faith, just with those that claim theirs to be the 'one true faith'. Unfortunately part of having faith means that yours must be the 'one true faith' or you've got it wrong & need to jump ship. Probably why they spend so much time trying to shoot each other down in flames (metaphorically & literally).

[Gahn]

hahaha

Btw, let me give you some mathematical examples :

Chance to spawn life (any life) on a planet, lets call is at 0.000000001% (just grabbed from thin air)

I googled some and found :
"10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate."

Lets see, lets multiplie them two numbers : 10.000.000 planets with life on!

But not all planets support "intelligent" life, so lets guess 1 ouf of every Milion planets support "intelligent" life. Thats 10 planets.

I dont know if you can even grasp how impossible it would be that just ONE (not 10) other planet WOULDNT exists in the entire universe with intelligent life on.

And to the religious people, why would God go to such and extent creating 10,000,000,000,000,000 planets (its a conservative estimate) just for us? lol really.

EDIT : http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterr ... 20life.htm (might aswell show it as I found it intressting)

Statistically it is common idea that there is a pool of possibly 100.000 planets where an intelligent life could have growned.
That said they could been exctincted or in the way to start space colonization or any other possibility in between.

[Gandelf]

Again, you've proved only that you don't understand what you're talking about, carbon dating works based on radioactive decay, so short of everything we know being an illusion (i.e. kinda like the Matrix) then your theory can't compensate for this.

I fully understand the scientific principles behind carbon dating etc, etc, but, you are assuming that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant. Whilst current rates may tend to cause one to believe that that's how they've always been, it's entirely possible that they haven't been constant. Again, if you say that's nonsense (and I don't deny you that right), then again you're basing that view upon the way things are now.

I did read somewhere, incidentally (I can't remember where), that a number of scientists believe they have evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. If that is the case, then what would be the impact of that? As a mental exercise for those who are scientifically inclined, let's assume for one moment that light is slowing down. What would be the results, if everything is based on that? What would the reverse conditions have been like, if light was faster in the past than it is today? Supposing the speed of light was decreasing exponentially and if there was a "big bang", would the speed of light have been infinite, etc. etc?

[<ankh>]

religious people dont think

their mind is tied up and wraped up around myths, they need no proof. So no proof you offer will matter to them. Nothing can change their minds however solid proof you offer. Its stupid imo, it hold the world back and does not make the best of what we as humans could be.

Yes and no. Sometimes religion is a good choice if you think your life stinks. Its also quite good in another way - when people think there is a life after death, it might be a reason for them to obey the laws and stuff so they don't end up in hell instead of heaven. ... or something

...but ofc, it might have the opposite effect too when you start to belive that your on a mission from god to destroy all unbelivers.

/Ankh

[Cromcruaich]

This should serve to at least get you thinking:-

http://www.halos.com/

It may not go into the detail of how species were created, but it does give some reasoning to why some people believe that the Earth was created in a very short time, which then should at least cause you to contemplate the possibility that evolution may not be the way things came about.

Followed this link, unfortunately it is typical of many such sites that make claim about papers and rearch that have undergone peer review, alongside wild claims about the scientific community being unable and unprepared to repond and refute this evidence. It really panders to people who are prepared to do nothing more than take such information of face value without actually digging any further.

The obvious problem here is that a tiny fallacy regarding those granite formations has been cited as evidence that the whole of the theory regarding the creation of the earth is false. Along side that is some extremely wooly thinking, siting radioactive decay evidence of pollonium in complete isolation from all the other radioactive analyses that infact have arrived at a date of the earth at something over 2 billion years (from memory).

The other essential point of note, if you really want to be rigourous, which I doubt you do (I certainly dont as my field is not geology!) is that his papers are published from the 1980's. The problem with this sort of evidence is that someone who obviously has a grounding in science can easily misrepresent this kind of evidence to the layman (you and me) while at the same time being completely discredited within the scientific community. By dropping in references (mostly their own in Gentry's case) and words such as 'peer review' they push the right buttons to convince the first time casual reader that they are given the whole story in a fully rigourous analysis - this truly isnt the case.

I ofcourse googled other information on it, try this. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm.

Now ive taken some time to read this, I hope you can make a start with Origins and The Age of Reason.

[<ankh>]

Oh btw - im still waiting for you answer on my question about what you think about the other billions of religious people who arent reborn or don't even belive in the same god(s). What makes you think that your better than them? Cos surely thats what you are saying..

well gandelf?

Edit:

I think it is brave of you to come on here, be in the minority, and argue your beliefs, so hats off to you there.

- Totally.

/Ankh

[Cromcruaich]

I fully understand the scientific principles behind carbon dating etc, etc, but, you are assuming that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant. Whilst current rates may tend to cause one to believe that that's how they've always been, it's entirely possible that they haven't been constant. Again, if you say that's nonsense (and I don't deny you that right), then again you're basing that view upon the way things are now.

I did read somewhere, incidentally (I can't remember where), that a number of scientists believe they have evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. If that is the case, then what would be the impact of that? As a mental exercise for those who are scientifically inclined, let's assume for one moment that light is slowing down. What would be the results, if everything is based on that? What would the reverse conditions have been like, if light was faster in the past than it is today? Supposing the speed of light was decreasing exponentially and if there was a "big bang", would the speed of light have been infinite, etc. etc?

Please provide references. 10 minutes on google and I could find evidence that light is made of Strawberry Angel Delight and were just hundreds and thousands on the trifle of life.