|
|
|
|
lucas_timmer
Aug 1, 2005, 9:10 AM
Post #226 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 562
|
In reply to: Here’s some numbers to play with. Borel’s law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond 1 in 1*10 to the 50th power, is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of how much time is allotted and regardless of how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place (Borel, 1962, chapters 1 and 3; see also Borel, 1965, p. 62). Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the simplest form of living organisms would be approximately 1 in 1*10 to the 340,000,000 The late Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the earth, is 1 in 1*10 to the 2,000,000,000 R.W. Kaplan, who spent years researching the possibility of the evolutionary origin of life, suggested that the probability of the simplest living organism being formed by chance processes was 1 in 1*10 to the 130th power. This is still 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to large to evan be considered a possibility according to Borel’s law of probability. Please remember these numbers only deal with the creation of ONE living organism. Now odds are cumulative, so the chances of evolution are 1 in 1*10 to the 130*x, were x is the odds of everything else that is required for life to reach it’s current state, the life form is not killed, two life forms of the same species become heterosexual at the same time, gene mutation don’t destroy a species, etc. For the sake of argument lets say all other odds combined only makes 1 chance in 100,000. Now the chances of evolution are 1 in 1*10 to the 135 power, while the number is most likely much higher than this, it does not mater as it precludes evolution as a legitimate explanation for the creation of life according to Borel’s law of probability. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the numbers we are discussing, there is supposed to be only around 10 to the 80th power elementary particles (electrons and protons) in the whole universe (Sagan, 1997, 22:967). In view of quantum physics this number is most likely incorrect as it does not deal with true elementary particles. Bandidopeco your argument that “the merit of a theory should be placed in what is learned from that theory.” is void. First, the theories of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, by this reasoning, should be herald as scientific truths as almost all scientific advances up until a few hundred years ago stemmed from these. Second, intelligent design spurred science along until about 130 years ago when evolution became a player in man’s never ending quest for answers. Third, almost all of the scientific would has believed in the theory of evolution for almost a hundred years. Thus evolution has had an advantage over intelligent design in stemming the advances of modern science. A living organism adapting to it’s environment does not prove the “Theory of Evolution” any more than an unexplainable occurrence proves the existence of God. An intelligent designer would know that life must be able to change in order to survive in a changing world. If the world were static rather then dynamic it would make since to say dynamic life forms put some wight on the scales in favor of evolution. However, the world is not static, thus life must be dynamic in order to survive, whether created by chance or a creator. If you want to believe in evolution fine, believe in it, but don’t say your position is stronger than that of those who believe in intelligent design. I will concede that 130 years ago evolution was a plausible explanation for the origin of life, however in light of our currant understanding of life and its complexity evolution has become outdated and is in need of being replaced. We now know that a single cell organism is more complex on the nano level then the human body on the cellular level. Did living cells evolve from non living things, such as viruses? Only problem is nonliving things don’t evolve. A simple look at genetics disproves (or puts into serious doubt) even an evolutionary process that is guided by a supernatural force. Why do some fish that are said to be variants of the same species and live in lakes only miles apart have DNA that says they are about as closely related as a catfish and a trout? I will also concede that if you must have an explanation for the world as we know it, and evolution is ruled out, the only other option, at this time, appears to be intelligent design. Now have fun tying your brain in knots trying to come up with a mathematically plausible explanation for life. :twisted: As I said before, be agnostic or admit that you believe in something that requires faith. Micah |
|
|
|
|
kappydane
Aug 1, 2005, 11:30 AM
Post #227 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 119
|
Born Again Christian - choose us or you go to hell
Mormon - choose us or you go to hell
Jehovah's Witness - choose us or you go to hell
Muslim - choose us or we'll kill you (tounge in cheek here)
.....
So they all think that "imperfect" man must make a PERFECT decision on picking the ONLY right religion or be destroyed!!
My choice is no choice rather than pick the wrong one!!!
|
|
|
|
|
rickrock77
Aug 1, 2005, 12:50 PM
Post #228 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 139
|
You always have to get to the source or the heart of the matter, and religion is no different.
A lot of people put their own spin on what they deliver, and the most popular religions having been putting their own spin on things for hundreds of years. So what you see is not always what is actually the escence of the religion. How if you have faith could you suddenly stop?
How copuld you leave your wife all of a sudden without a word after a happy marriage..
If you have faith in rock climbing maybe that is all you have faith in..
Faith is many things not just religion..
I still hold faith for man kind, and for blonds becoming smart.. :twisted: :lol: tongue in cheek there not serious.. love blonds haha..
|
|
|
|
|
indigenousalien
Aug 1, 2005, 1:11 PM
Post #229 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2005
Posts: 6
|
In reply to: I believe it was Socrates (or maybe Spinoza) who said, "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." JL In reply to: First bicycle was not introduced until the 19th century, long after the death of both spinoza and socrates; this quote actually originated from feminist Gloria Steinem, but has been modified and paraphrased prodigally. Also, no works from Socrates are recorded anywhere, he advocated the primacy of the spoken words over the "corrupted" written one; the only reports we have of his philosophy are what Plato writes and credits to socrates
|
|
|
|
|
indigenousalien
Aug 1, 2005, 2:21 PM
Post #230 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2005
Posts: 6
|
In reply to: In reply to: I read through all the posts for this topic and have only one morsel of advice for all you "climbers" out there: The cobbler should not go beyond shoes Just what does this mean? Are you trying to say that someone needs to get some kind of formal religious education to discuss it?
Have you read this tripe? regurgitated dichotomies and recieved texts, entirely unsubtle and insipid views of one of the most complex issues in human psychology; but no, one needs no formal education to discuss it, only a mind, which is an event rarer, more pure and holy, than any mass or sermon.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Aug 1, 2005, 2:36 PM
Post #231 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
MODS HELP PLEASE!!!! THIS BELONGS IN COMMUNITY!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
indigenousalien
Aug 1, 2005, 3:57 PM
Post #232 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2005
Posts: 6
|
In reply to: . Did living cells evolve from non living things, such as viruses? Only problem is nonliving things don’t evolve.
Viruses do "evolve", that is, they do not copy their DNA perfectly each time and this gives rise to new variants(see, for example, the ever expanding catalogue of flu, cold, or hiv strains). Does this mean they are alive? do we even know what it means to be alive? How can we even assume the catagories "alive" and "not alive" apply to the world? we invented these words, as humans, to describe what we think are types, forms if you will, followed by the universe. But do we really find a division between what is alive and what is not? Does our form correspond to the phenomenon? Biologically, life is defined as something that reproduces, uses energy, moves, and responds to stimuli. If you consider, for example, a crystal forming inside the earth, it does all these things. To takes this a step further, all particles can exhibit all these behaviors when viewed at the quantum level, so maybe everything is alive and evolving. Ubiquitous evolution--this seems to be a requirement of the universe, at least as we understand it; if quantum mechanics is "true"(true is another concept that has a tenuous base in reality, but i use it here for cognitive convenience), nothing anywhere can ever be static or still for the slightest instant. All is motion and change, and any concept that refers to a thing, an entity, is a lie. Change, interaction, is the only phenomenon.
Also, in regard to that hecatomb of statistics ejaculated earlier:what distribution was used to generate them, and how were its parameters determined? What was its variability, and what was the confidence interval of the numbers cited? what estimators were used, and what assumptions were made in using them? Of course, i don't expect answers to these questions, because there are none. Those statistics are felonious. No one has enough information on the initial conditions on earth, ot the initial conditions of life, to make any rigorous or aven ballpark estimation of any probabilities involved with its origin. The correct probability, using point estimation based on Sagan's or whoever's model may be as they say, 10^(-whatever), but if the standard deviation is one(which, given the lack of firm conditional knowledge, it may well be) the probability is useless, because the range of possible probabilities would be from zero to one and the "experiment" provieds no useful Data. And yes, i am aware that anyone who hasn't taken statistics will have no clue what i just wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
grin-n-barrett
Deleted
Aug 1, 2005, 5:29 PM
Post #233 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Trad vs. Sport? which is better?
|
|
|
|
|
vivalargo
Aug 1, 2005, 5:57 PM
Post #234 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 1512
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: if i didn't have faith in jesus christ, the man who died for my sins and loves me unconditionally, what would there be left to have faith in? Is that an honest question (meaning you're seeking something unknown) or do you already have an answer in your head that you are certain is correct?? JL Knowing Amy's faith, I would say that it's rhetorical.
Does that mean that once a person has a faith comparable to Amy's, honest inquiry is scrapped in place of "rhetorical" folderol? Surely you don't mean it this way??
JL
|
|
|
|
|
ddriver
Aug 1, 2005, 6:04 PM
Post #235 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 264
|
[quote="indigenousalien"]In reply to: I believe it was Socrates (or maybe Spinoza) who said, "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." JL In reply to: First bicycle was not introduced until the 19th century, long after the death of both spinoza and socrates; this quote actually originated from feminist Gloria Steinem, but has been modified and paraphrased prodigally. Also, no works from Socrates are recorded anywhere, he advocated the primacy of the spoken words over the "corrupted" written one; the only reports we have of his philosophy are what Plato writes and credits to socrates Oh come on: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." So, a few random thoughts related to above posts: Its funny how "intelligent design" is now perceived as legitimate science, its proponents all the while professing "we're not necessarily saying it was God." Oh, so what the hell ARE you saying? By the way, I read a good article a month or so back about the Discovery Institute in Seattle that has pushed a lot of the intelligent design debate. It is worth researching these guys and responses from the scientific community to get a feel for where this came from. I hope that science can be debated in a legitimate scientific context, rather than pushed on the public schools with an ulterior motive. If this movement gains traction, I think the appropriate response will be to introduce science into the teaching of religion in churches. My perspective is that evolutionary theories are in as much danger of falling by the wayside as is the gravitational theory. Every day scientific work expands and solidifies those theories. Evolutionary theories don't mean that there wasn't a god or divine intervention, although I suspect there was not. The biggest problem with evolutionary theories is that they threaten organized religions and the doctrines they are based upon, and that means they threaten long-established power and money structures. That is the big threat. As for the validity of the big bang theory, I suspect that there has been more than one big bang, and that no single big bang has encompassed all of our universe(s). It would also follow that there will be future big bangs. One of the most difficult problems with the scientific method is asking the right question, and then having the wherewithall to find the answer. I think we're a long way from getting this one right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Aug 1, 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #237 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
reno moved this thread from General to Community.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 1, 2005, 10:30 PM
Post #238 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: if i didn't have faith in jesus christ, the man who died for my sins and loves me unconditionally, what would there be left to have faith in? Is that an honest question (meaning you're seeking something unknown) or do you already have an answer in your head that you are certain is correct?? JL Knowing Amy's faith, I would say that it's rhetorical. Does that mean that once a person has a faith comparable to Amy's, honest inquiry is scrapped in place of "rhetorical" folderol?
I would say that that is exatly the case. I'm surprised you don't think so. How can you inquire when you have faith? Inquiry implies that you don't have faith.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
junaid
Aug 2, 2005, 2:05 AM
Post #239 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 39
|
In reply to: HAND DOWN! Climbing Stays! I'm an Athiest!
So for you the question would read "what if you had to start believing in God or give up climbing?"
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 2, 2005, 2:25 AM
Post #240 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
People like to say that Jesus died for their sins.
I prefer to believe that I have no sin.
|
|
|
|
|
esallen
Aug 2, 2005, 4:17 AM
Post #241 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
Wow, wish I had time to read this entire thread . . . yea right . . .
I feel like I should just pipe in long enough to say that my priorities in my life are thus:
1. God
2. Family
3. Career
4. Climbing
5. Everything else.
I consider myself a theist, a family man, a hard worker, and a climber, but not just a climber alone; there is much more to life, however hard it is even for me to admit. While I may be addicted to climbing, it just can’t be first.
In the few pages of this thread that I did glance at, it has been fun to read the many misrepresentations of different religious views, philosophers, and quotations. Great laughs I tell ya . . . My favorites were the bit about Pascal’s Wager and the atheism-agnosticism distinction -both totally misconstrued.
Let us all please go out and climb!
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
signmanzdk
Aug 2, 2005, 2:15 PM
Post #243 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 29
|
You're absolutely right, He wouldn't ask you to choose, b/c He shouldn't have to ask :!: Don't get me wrong, I love climbing more than any other sport, but nothing will ever take God's place.
|
|
|
|
|
jpearl
Aug 2, 2005, 3:26 PM
Post #244 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
Now that I think about it, you can't really have either "faith" or climbing as an absolute, in this case, absolutely one or the other.
"Faith" however it is translated by different "religions" (I emphasize the quotation marks as not to generalize or pass judgement) is usually in play 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It factors into every thing you do, from when you wake up until when you go to sleep, from planning out what to do later today to planning out the rest of your life. It goes from micro to macro, and makes its way into all of the complex crevaces and niches that are the mosaic of a persons life.
Climbing is just something we do. Whether we be gym rats or live-in-a-van big wall trad junkies washing dishes at strange restaurants to purchase that next piece of pro, climbing is in the end still just a smaller part of our bigger lives. Granted it pushes us close to bigger lifecycle events, namely death (G-d forbid) and it tones our bodies to uber-healthy standards, it still cannot exist as a seperate entity from the combined factors that do indeed define our day to day lives and our lives as they play out over a lifetime.
(2 points for jpearl for not including a smart-ass remark in this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 2, 2005, 3:37 PM
Post #245 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I would say that that is exatly the case. I'm surprised you don't think so. How can you inquire when you have faith? Inquiry implies that you don't have faith. Having faith doesn't mean you know everything. Scientists have faith in gravity: even though they don't know how it works they believe without qualification that it does. They continue to question how, but equally continue to believe.
Scientists do not have faith in gravity. They have observed that there is a force with which objects attract each other that is proportional to the product of the objects' masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. They have observed this force countless times in countless settings, have found no exceptions to it, and have thus inferred that it is universal. There's no faith here it all; none is required, just systematic observation and inference.
As to faith in god, I don't know what that is based, except perhaps poor upbringing combined with poor education.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Aug 2, 2005, 3:54 PM
Post #246 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Well quite.
Faith in God is based in just the same things as faith in gravity: observation and experience.
There are thousands of volumes of eyewitness accounts, historical documents and personal testimony supporting the existence of God, countless times in countless settings. As you say, there is a similar body of evidence supporting the existence of gravity. Of course, to accept a scientist's word that gravity exists and simultaneously dismiss a christian's word that God exists when both are based on the same criteria would be nonsensical, wouldn't it?
For acceptance of anything not to involve faith, it must be fully understood. Nobody has the first clue how gravity works. We know some things about what it does, but the mechanism is not understood and thus cannot be proved.
Acceptance without proof is called faith, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 2, 2005, 3:58 PM
Post #247 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Well quite. Faith in God is based in just the same things as faith in gravity: observation and experience. There are thousands of volumes of eyewitness accounts, historical documents and personal testimony supporting the existence of God, countless times in countless settings. As you say, there is a similar body of evidence supporting the existence of gravity. Of course, to accept a scientist's word that gravity exists and simultaneously dismiss a christian's word that God exists when both are based on the same criteria would be nonsensical, wouldn't it?
If they were based on the same criteria, then indeed it would. Speaking of criteria, do you believe in flying saucers too?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Aug 2, 2005, 4:04 PM
Post #248 of 300
(11126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
In reply to: Acceptance without proof is called faith, isn't it?
No, I believe that would be called "belief."
As far as the gravity vs. belief in God...anyone can observe the evidence of gravity, and have it lead to he same conclusion (are there other rational comclusions?)
Not everyone can observe the evidence of the existence of God and have it bring them to the same conclusion. The fact that one does believe in God, and have faith that He exists does not mean that the evidence (or whatever) that brings him or her to this conclusion would elad all rational people to the same conclusion. The fact that there are still unknowns about gravity does not mean I have "faith" in gravity. The fact that there are unknowns about God, but I still believe that He exists, however, does.
To me, the differences between the two are quite plain.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Aug 2, 2005, 4:16 PM
Post #249 of 300
(11123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: If they were based on the same criteria, then indeed it would. Speaking of criteria, do you believe in flying saucers too?
No, but then again I don't either ignore the possibility of their existence or abuse those who do believe in them, because I don't think I have enough information to make a firm decision, nor is there enough evidence to the contrary.
Assigning a probability of zero to the existence of an unknown is just as stupid as assigning it a probability of infinity.
Josh, I think the differences between belief and faith are small, and they do overlap. The key thing about faith is that it's not based on material evidence or hard proof - like scientists' belief in the mechanism of gravity in the absence of any proof of it, on which they rest so much of modern physics.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Aug 2, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #250 of 300
(11066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: If they were based on the same criteria, then indeed it would. Speaking of criteria, do you believe in flying saucers too?
No, but then again I don't either ignore the possibility of their existence or abuse those who do believe in them, because I don't think I have enough information to make a firm decision, nor is there enough evidence to the contrary.
Assigning a probability of zero to the existence of an unknown is just as stupid as assigning it a probability of infinity.
Josh, I think the differences between belief and faith are small, and they do overlap. The key thing about faith is that it's not based on material evidence or hard proof - like scientists' belief in the mechanism of gravity in the absence of any proof of it, on which they rest so much of modern physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
