Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[mpok1519]

I dont thinkt here are expert physicists on this forum.

I assume all the expert physicists are on their own expert physicist forums, correct?

 

[Logic_Fault]

This thread veered way into the origins of the universe a long time ago when an atheist decided he wanted to attack and make fun of me for my beliefs and asked me that question.

Not quite. It was you who brought up the origins of the universe:

A few questions for you....

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

I answered his, and then asked him a question - so far, NONE of the expert physicists have been able to answer my question.

Wrong, yet again. Many of us have answered your question. I've answered it numerous times. It's not our fault you wont accept "we don't know" as an answer, nor will you tell us why it's not good enough.

 

[DMagoh]

Nope. Most people accept "we don't know" as a reasonable answer. You, on the other hand, wont so I gave you one idea about where the energy came from. Not that it'll make a bit of difference.


I personally don't know. There may be some hypothesis about it that I'm not aware of though.

Okay, I was just checking. I just wanted to make sure you werent trying to convince me that "voo-doo" physics (quantum fluctuation of the vacuum) answered the question "Where did the original matter/energy/radiation field/insert favorite begining point here come from?

 

[DMagoh]

Not quite. It was you who brought up the origins of the universe:

Originally Posted by DMagoh
A few questions for you....

How did the universe start? I mean, we know that the amount of usuable energy in the universe is decreasing which means that the universe is not infinite... all the usuable energy will eventually be used up which means it will have an end, and therefore, had to have a beginning. Also, we know the universe is expanding, so it was not always as it is now, and had to have a beginning.

Actually, my question was in response to "TheBear's" questions...

A few questions for DMagoh.

Who made the discovery, scientists or creationists?

How old is the earth?

Do you accept the entire article?

Wrong, yet again. Many of us have answered your question. I've answered it numerous times. It's not our fault you wont accept "we don't know" as an answer, nor will you tell us why it's not good enough.

"We dont know" doesnt answer the question. It merely states that you do not know the answer.

 

[DMagoh]

I dont thinkt here are expert physicists on this forum.

I assume all the expert physicists are on their own expert physicist forums, correct?

Are all the expert biologists on their own expert biologists forums? I guess we should just shut down the Creation and Evolution forum then since all the experts are elsewhere and nobody else can be taken seriously.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Okay, I was just checking. I just wanted to make sure you werent trying to convince me that "voo-doo" physics (quantum fluctuation of the vacuum) answered the question "Where did the original matter/energy/radiation field/insert favorite begining point here come from?

No, I wasn't trying to convince you that quantum fluctuations were the answer. I have been trying to convince you that "we don't know" is the only real answer we have at the moment.

Like I said, there are ideas out there about it--such as the one I provided with the quantum fluctuations--but as far as I'm aware none of them are anything other than preliminary guesses based on what we know of how the universe works. Any of them, or none of them, could be correct.

 

[consol]

"Where did the original matter/energy/radiation field/insert favorite begining point here come from?

Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that one, it was poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing,
ad nauseam, and it's usually people with only half a brain who believe it.

When you believe in a religion you end up with a mental problem, because it's not the answer to any thing,
it makes mentally retarded people even more mentally retarded, and for what? a delution, a hope
a maybe, a perhaps, a wish, a desire, a dream, a chance at ever lasting life, dream on suckers.

The one main drawback with religion is that you will NEVER know if you were right,
because when you die, you will just die.
But the one good thing about religion is no one will ever come back to tell you either way,
so the way is open to keep the other smucks believing.

Thank GOD it's a wonderful world, what would the world be without a few Gods around the place.
Gods are worth a lot of money to a lot of people, I honestly think if Gods could be proved not to exist,
the governments of the world would destroy the evidence and the people who found it,
because religion is BIG BIG business, and it keeps people quite.

Just try and image what would happen if consequence was taken off the table and what you did in this life
went unpunished in the next, there would be complete anarchy,
so you can see how important religion is to the governments of this world.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Actually, my question was in response to "TheBear's" questions...

Be that as it may, you are still the one who asked about it first (unless I missed someone else's post).

"We dont know" doesnt answer the question. It merely states that you do not know the answer.

Fine. If you'd like me to be precise, "we don't have an answer to that question" is the best you're going to get when it comes to explaining the origin of the energy/matter that was the origin of our universe.

Why exactly that makes a difference to you I can't see but there you have it. Like I said, "we don't know" would be a perfectly acceptable answer to most people.

 

[mpok1519]

many scientists believe that energy/matter has always existed and doesn't need a point of origin.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well since Jesus is back in heaven, you'll have to wait until Judgement Day to ask Him for that - but I'm hoping you will have realized the error of your ways before then, because then it will be too late.

That is but one example. According to the Old Testament God has interfered with the natural world on many occasions. From my Sunday School days I seem to remember guys being thrown in furnaces, water logged offerings starting on fire, prophets riding flaming chariots into the sky, etc. There is nothing to indicate that God is not capable nor unwilling to do the same now.

You keep going on about not needing evidence for God, and yet this is exactly what you would require for any scientific theory pertaining to the origin of the universe. Myself and others take a very unbiased position. We require evidence of any explanation, supernatural or natural.

Next time I see one, I'll call you.

According to you, you should never see one. God is supposed to be undetectable, remember?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, I was just checking. I just wanted to make sure you werent trying to convince me that "voo-doo" physics (quantum fluctuation of the vacuum) answered the question "Where did the original matter/energy/radiation field/insert favorite begining point here come from?

Vacuum fluctuations are real and have been measured. There is nothing magical or "voo-doo"esque about them. If you want to start talking about voo-doo we can, but I think christians are the ones who believe in people coming back from the dead if I remember correctly.

 

[mpok1519]

in today's time its possible to ressurrect; you just need the right kinds of drugs like the one in Romeo and Juliet.

yes, Im always offtopic!

 

[Logic_Fault]

in today's time its possible to ressurrect; you just need the right kinds of drugs like the one in Romeo and Juliet.

Not after three days it isn't.

yes, Im always offtopic!

And now so am I since I replied to you.

Sorry all!

 

[DMagoh]

Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that one, it was poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing
that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing that was in turn poofed into existence by a thing,
ad nauseam, and it's usually people with only half a brain who believe it.

When you believe in a religion you end up with a mental problem, because it's not the answer to any thing,
it makes mentally retarded people even more mentally retarded, and for what? a delution, a hope
a maybe, a perhaps, a wish, a desire, a dream, a chance at ever lasting life, dream on suckers.

The one main drawback with religion is that you will NEVER know if you were right,
because when you die, you will just die.
But the one good thing about religion is no one will ever come back to tell you either way,
so the way is open to keep the other smucks believing.

Thank GOD it's a wonderful world, what would the world be without a few Gods around the place.
Gods are worth a lot of money to a lot of people, I honestly think if Gods could be proved not to exist,
the governments of the world would destroy the evidence and the people who found it,
because religion is BIG BIG business, and it keeps people quite.

Just try and image what would happen if consequence was taken off the table and what you did in this life
went unpunished in the next, there would be complete anarchy,
so you can see how important religion is to the governments of this world.

Thanks for showing your complete ignorance. I now see what the black portion in the gray head in your symbol stands for... nothingness. Feel free to come back when you have something to add to the discussion. However, if you just want to throw juvenile insults at people, you would be best served by going to the nearest high school and standing in the halls with the rest of the thugs and future-drop-outs and bond with each other.

 

[mpok1519]

its not like hes trying to insult anyone, that is just his honest opinion of religion.

 

[Brennin]

The Ontological Argument is the tightest circular argument in existence. It boils down to, "If we adopt the existence of God as an axiom then God exists." As your own link states:

"Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. "

IOW, if we assume God exists then God exists.

Claiming the Ontological Argument is circular is a sure sign that you cannot comprehend it.

 

[Brennin]

Well, Right now I'm assuming a chocolate fudge sundae in front of me, and it hasn't manifested itself yet -- ergo, the Ontological Argument is false.

Is that sundae your way of celebrating your willful ignorance of modal logic?

 

[Brennin]

Well, it really looks like you are wrong. The Argument from Ontology is possibly the single least credible argument for the existence of God, given that it pretty much boils down to this: we can imagine things into existence provided the things we're imagining are good enough.

At least that's my Philosophy 101 understanding of it. Could you elaborate any further on your reasons for supporting the argument, and which formulation of the argument do you support?

I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument:

Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by — i.e., strictly implied by — a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

 

[Loudmouth]

I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument:

Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by — i.e., strictly implied by — a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Axioms 3-5 complete the circle.

 

[gamespotter10]

Evolution Has To Be Rethunk
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HUMAN_EVOLUTION?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




Really? I thought ape man was a fact and only looneys didnt believe in it. Do tell...

.

So... ape-man is a joke. Hmmm, I guess atheists better start rethinking their strategem.



So this ape-like creature co-existed with man, instead of man evolving from him..... interesting.



Sort of like man and chimps today, huh? I always wondered why if man evolved from monkeys why some quit evolving and were still monkeys.

while this new evidence would cause us to amend the theory of evolution, it would by no means prove that the theory of evolution is untrue, and it sure as **** wouldent' prove creationism right