Why I don't think god exists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Cainxinth, Dec 3, 2001.

  1. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Cainxinth
    50 to 100 years from scientific research will have advanced so far that humankind will have more control over its destiny than is currently conceivable.
    *

    That's what they were saying 50 to 100 years ago.
    So where is this control, or will it always be 50 to 100 years in the future?

    *I live my life to help advance and accelerate this singular event in human history and hope that I may be astoundingly fortunate enough to experience it.*

    You will experience it, but whether you will consider yourself fortunate at that time remains to be seen.

    *but I respect you and won’t force my beliefs on you.*

    Why, thank you.
    Feel free to share them anyway, though.

    *Tony, do you have any background in biology? Do you realize what you’ve said makes no sense?*

    Of course, it doesn't. You would have to understand simple division, which is arithmetic rather than biology.

    *Here’s a good place to start*

    I realize that it may be a stretch for an educated person such as yourself to stoop to think, but how about figuring out some of the ramifications of an evolutionary rate of one new base pair per year?

    PS I admire your attempt to sidetrack me with endless searching and studying on the internet and all, but how about just performing the division yourself?

    *Understandably, Taken, Elbaz, and Tony may have further issues to settle with me in this thread before they will be prepared to discuss my arguments against the existence of god*

    Well, let's hear them, even before settling issues.
    I assume that you will be giving us the same new arguments that everyone else has?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    absolutism? you might not know it but your the babbling eccentric from a broader perspective. I tell you what I meant and then you come back trying to tell me what I meant. Theres nothing wrong with ego, you just have to stop it from clouding your judgement.

    I'd like to point out one thing to you caixinth. You say you wont force your beliefs on me in trying to quote me in your petty arrogance, but your quick judgement has once again shone to the surface. In my religion we believe that the purpose of humans is to control nature and our surroundings and to understand reality. Something we havent done.

    So you see your attempt to blow me off has only blown off yourself. Your saying you wont force your beliefs on me like I did you, despite the fact, they're in essence the same. You dont seem to respect or acknowledge my beliefs. And thats alright. I have more important things to deal with than people like you.

    And I rarely use those terms. only in those I can see right through, to the bone.

    You talk one sided, and for a two faced person, your way off sync.

    If you actually want to debate with me than let me know.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    The first thing I would like to say is I’m sorry this debate has gotten so heated. It’s apparent we have strong beliefs that we are quick to defend. Looking back at my posts I see I have been both antagonistic and arrogant. I apologize and I will make an effort to continue this debate in a more civil and courteous manner.

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

    “50 to 100 years from now scientific research will have advanced so far that humankind will have more control over its destiny than is currently conceivable. An exponential spike in our understanding of reality will alter human history to an unparalleled degree. No event in all of time recorded will be comparable to this quantum leap, and lives as we currently know them will become a distant and curious memory.” -Cainxinth

    Counter Point: “That's what they were saying 50 to 100 years ago”. –Tony

    True. But look at all of history; different ideologies from both scientific and religious backgrounds have always been making dramatic predictions about the future their belief prophesized. Furthermore, those predictions can be seen on a continuum of outcomes ranging from completely utopian to completely dystopian (e.g. apocalyptic).

    Religious Utopian- "On the new earth, in which righteousness dwells, God will provide an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment for everlasting life, love, joy, and learning in His presence. For here God Himself will dwell with His people, and suffering and death will have passed away. The great controversy will be ended, and sin will be no more. All things, animate and inanimate, will declare that God is love; and He shall reign forever. Amen. (2 Peter 3:13; Isa. 35; 65:17-25; Matt. 5:5; Rev. 21:1-7; 22:1-5; 11:15.)"

    from the Adventist Church Official Website http://www.adventist.org/

    Scientific Utopian- My own belief falls under this category. Singularity Theory: "...the postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotechnology, neuroscience, AI, theoretical physics, and other sciences) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. The Singularity is a common matter of discussion in transhumanist circles. There is no concise definition, but usually the Singularity is meant as a future time when societal, scientific and economic change is so fast we cannot even imagine what will happen from our present perspective, and when humanity will become posthumanity. Another definition is the singular time when technological development will be at its fastest." Here is a graphical representation of one aspect of the singularity

    from KurzweilAI.net http://www.kurzweilai.net (Raymond Kurzweil is a writer, inventor and entrepreneur responsible for such advances in pattern recognition and artificial intelligence as optical character recognition, automatic or continuous speech recognition, and digitial synthesizers. He is also a full time professor at the MIT Media Lab and has sponsored innovative projects in the cyber arts, and in health and medicine.)

    Religious Dystopian- "I think there are some very deep human needs that are met by the prophetic belief system. Prophetic belief gives meaning to history. It gives a sense of drama to history. It gives an order and shape to human experience. We need beginnings. We need endings. Prophetic belief provides that. It also, if you accept certain interpretations that are being presented, gives meaning and a sort of coherence to current events, world events, and what's happening technologically and politically in the world. It all fits into a kind of master plan that is unfolding, and I think for many people it's very reassuring to have that sense that someone is in charge.

    One of the things I find most interesting about prophetic belief viewed historically is how in every time period of history there have been groups, there have been individuals who have looked at the events of their day and concluded: This is it. This is the moment. And you can trace that from the medieval period, from Joachim of Fiore and Hildegard of Bingen, through the Reformation period, the incredible crisis, the sense of crisis that the Reformation brought to Europe. Seventeenth century Puritans in England were convinced that the corruption of the Catholic Church and the corruption of the Church of England were signs of the end times. Right down through the crisis of World War I and the crisis of World War II, the Cold War period, each generation somehow has found circumstances that are convincing to them that the end times are upon us."

    from PBS Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/

    Scientific Dystopian- Apocalyptic visions of the future are nothing new. For centuries, many of the world's leading thinkers have predicted imminent catastrophe unless we radically changed our ways. Although most of these forecasts were proven false, such setbacks have never discouraged subsequent generations of alarmists. Plato and Euripides can be forgiven for their worries that population growth would cause widespread famine. We can also excuse Thomas Malthus who, in 1798, predicted disaster for humankind if we continued to expand. In 1969 the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, warned that humanity had 'perhaps 10 years left' in which to solve our global environmental and other problems or these challenges 'will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.'"

    From The Nando Times http://www.nandotimes.com/

    From a strictly historical standpoint my belief is just as likely to disappoint me as every other utopian and dystopian prophecy. It is the one I choose for myself because I felt it had the most evidence to back it up, and that is precisely what is on debate in this thread – the evidence both factual and anecdotal that we support our personal ideologies with.

    “So where is this control, or will it always be 50 to 100 years in the future?” -Tony

    Would you please rephrase this question, Tony. I’m not certain I know what you’re asking.

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

    “It is my solid belief that all religions, all theology, the belief in god itself is linked all the way back to that first caveman who couldn’t understand his world and was forced to make incorrect assumptions.” -Cainxinth

    Counter Point: “In spite of his absence from Western culture and history Stone Age man is seen to equal or, in some cases, to surpass our own modern accomplishments.” -Taken

    Counterpoint: “Is it remotely possible that he could have developed a theory as to why the sun existed without using supernatural explanations? No, …and not because he lacked the physical or perhaps even the mental capacities; but because he simply did not have the knowledge of the complex natural interactions behind all those phenomenon garnered by centuries of human investigation.” -Cainxinth

    Counter Point: “Working from the skeptical view, we find that science now tends to confirm what even the earliest references of creation in found text and artifacts said. So either early man was very much our peer in the field of science, or he did have a direct connection to an inside source..i.e. God.” –Taken

    Counterpoint“The whisper down the lane effect” whereas information is progressively distorted by repeated oral transmission. Consequently, the further back into the past you go when studying history the murkier and less reliable information becomes.” -Cainxinth

    “Where do you personally think those "early" men came from.” –Taken

    Counterpoint: “Lightning, sunlight and other energetic stimuli reacted with an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to produce a liquid that contained all of the basic ingredients for life. Among these ingredients were amino acids, which through spontaneous chemical reactions linked up to form molecules that make up organic life. From those molecules the first single celled organisms developed about 3.8 billion years ago. Those organisms slowly evolved and advanced over the eons in a process called phylogeny into more and more complex organisms, leading up to mammals the most advanced organisms on the planet, and finally, man, the most advanced of the mammals.” -Cainxinth

    Counter Point: “The human genome contains 3.3 billion base pairs. You say evolution has taken about 3.8 billion years. That means one new base pair appeared almost every single year, on average, to go from rock to man. What evolutionist has any evidence that evolution works that fast?” -Tony

    "Life is an amazing microcosm of chemical reactions directed to biosynthesis of self protoplasm and reproduction. Where did life come from? The widely accepted scientific theory is that life arose on the planet spontaneously and has evolved progressively over a period of several billion years into the kinds of animals, plants and microorganisms that occur today. Geochemical evidence indicates that the earth is approximately 5 billion years old. Signs of life first appeared approximately 3.5 billion years ago. The primordial earth was anoxic; there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. The first 1-2 billion years, there was a period of chemical evolution where the kinds of molecules that constitute living cells were formed by spontaneous chemical reactions. Finally these molecules came together as macromolecules in a cooperative complex that was the primordial cell. It was not until approximately 2.5 billion years ago that oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere, the result of hydrolysis of water by photosynthetic bacteria called Cyanobacteria."

    from Bacteriology at UW-Madison http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/BiochemicalEvolution

    As you can see this was not a fast process. Nor did new base pairs develop one year at a time. Base pairs are meaningless by themselves; all pairs are part of genes, which can contain up to thousands of base pairs. The evolution of life on earth moved by the scale of genes not base pairs.

    E. Coli a very old organism dating back around 2 billion years has 5,440,000 base pairs and 5,416 genes compared to human who have 3,300,000,000 base pairs and around 34,000 genes and date back about 5 million years. Humanity had 1.995 billion years to evolve 28,584 new genes. Using your arithmetic this equates to 69,794 years for every new gene. As for going from rock to man: The origin of life described by science is based on organic molecules, the building blocks of life, not inorganic minerals the building blocks of rocks.

    If you would like to read about the current scientific debate over the process of evolution even prior to simple organisms like e.coli follow this link.

    Counterpoint: "scientists have not yet determined exactly how having the right ingredients at the right time led to life."- Cainxinth
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2001
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Cainxinth
    The first thing I would like to say is I’m sorry this debate has gotten so heated.
    *

    Heated?
    This is nothing, it is barely even warm to the touch.

    *True. But look at all of history; different ideologies from both scientific and religious backgrounds have always been making dramatic predictions about the future their belief prophesized. Furthermore, those predictions can be seen on a continuum of outcomes ranging from completely utopian to completely dystopian (e.g. apocalyptic).*

    IOW, predictions of the future, unless true, mean nothing.
    Science has a particularly abysmal record on that count.

    *...From a strictly historical standpoint my belief is just as likely to disappoint me as every other utopian and dystopian prophecy. It is the one I choose for myself because I felt it had the most evidence to back it up, and that is precisely what is on debate in this thread – the evidence both factual and anecdotal that we support our personal ideologies with.*

    Well, here's the real scoop, if you believe God, your future will be utopian, and if you don't, it will be dystopian.

    *Would you please rephrase this question, Tony. I’m not certain I know what you’re asking. *

    Science always seems to be promising a better world around the corner, i.e. 50 to 100 years hence.
    Is the corner an ever-receding corner?

    *It is my solid belief that all religions, all theology, the belief in god itself is linked all the way back to that first caveman who couldn’t understand his world and was forced to make incorrect assumptions.” -Cainxinth*

    "Solid," of course, being a debating buzzword meaning "having no base."

    Presumably, evolution would favor the caveman who survived, regardless of the correctness of his assumptions.
    Now you wish to scrap the assumptions which led to your survival.
    Since belief in God survived, presumably there is something in that belief which allowed that caveman to survive, while his atheist brothers didn't.

    *Consequently, the further back into the past you go when studying history the murkier and less reliable information becomes.”*

    That bodes ill for both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution.

    *As you can see this was not a fast process. Nor did new base pairs develop one year at a time. Base pairs are meaningless by themselves; all pairs are part of genes, which can contain up to thousands of base pairs. The evolution of life on earth moved by the scale of genes not base pairs.*

    Clever, but those base pairs didn't just appear in huge bunches out of nowhere.
    The average remains about one new base pair per year for 3.8 billion years.
    If you can't explain that rate, then the theory of evolution is invalid.
    Actually, even if you can, the theory of evolution is still invalid.

    *E. Coli a very old organism dating back around 2 billion years has 5,440,000 base pairs and 5,416 genes compared to human who have 3,300,000,000 base pairs and around 34,000 genes and date back about 5 million years.*

    So now you have to explain several things...
    1. Why did man evolve from E. coli, while we still have E. coli?
    Were the unevolved E. coli unusually stupid, not knowing they should evolve?
    2. Who says man evolved from E. coli?
    3. What data would you have for man dating back to 5 million years and E. coli dating back 2 billion years? Other than pure speculation, of course.
    4. Based on your earlier comment about less reliable information being the oldest, why would you expect me to accept "data" dating back 2 billion years, and on your say-so, when you disregard information dating back only 2000 years?

    *Humanity had 1.995 billion years to evolve 28,584 new genes. Using your arithmetic this equates to 69,794 years for every new gene.*

    It still equates to only about 9 months per new base pair.
    That's even faster than the original rate I asked you about.
    What proposed, postulated, or even imagined, mechanism would account for such a rapid change in any genome?

    Besides, going back about 140,000 years, that would mean that man had two genes missing.
    Which two would they be, and where is the evidence for Homo Twogenesmissingus?

    *As for going from rock to man: The origin of life described by science is based on organic molecules, the building blocks of life, not inorganic minerals the building blocks of rocks.*

    I can only assume that you think when planets cool down, organic molecules form just as they might in a test tube.

    *scientists have not yet determined exactly how having the right ingredients at the right time led to life.*

    No kidding.
    Actually, they never will "determine" that.
    They will allow their imaginations to run wild, instead.

    How fortunate for the teachers that students don't think.
     
  8. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Our rate of new discoveries has grown exponentially in the past 100 years. Something new is invented or discovered every day. We are on the verge of nanotechnology, which has the potential to make us immortal (albeit, not right away, much more research would be required to acheive something that advanced). At the very least it will eliminate most disease and allow us to repair damage to our bodies in a fraction of the time it would take at the moment.

    The current estimate on this technology is about 10-25 years from now. When it is perfected, not only will we have control of our lifespan, but over almost all diseases currently affecting us. I'd say that's quite a bit of control wouldn't you tony1?

    If given enough time, our race can acheive any technological feat imaginable, and then some. Anything is possible. And when we get to the point where we can alter characteristics of the universe or even create our own planets and life forms, we ourselves would become gods if we so chose. It doesn't take much to say "I am your God, worship me" to an intelligent life form you created and have them believe you...

    P.S.
    Are you suggesting the prediction of Jesus Christ's return means nothing?

    Of course it is. There is always room for improvement, no matter how advanced our way of life gets.
     
  9. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    I have to agree with tony1 that this discussion is not heated. You will soon see cainxinth what a heated debate can be after a while at sciforums.

    Anyway, as that guy said, there are lies damned lies and statistics. You can count the numbers and it sounds impossible.

    But when we talk about the functioning of DNA, and its mutation.

    Its estimated a new gene appears about every 1000 years or so. Thats a wink in time, but to us, alot.

    Also, who here has a PhD in the field of biomedical engineering? You all claim to be experts. Base pairs can transform very fast. and new genes dont appear often. They're just scrambled.

    We cant predict the future through normal means but we can see an outlook. I dont know what the future holds, but I do know our knowledge of the world can only grow.

    If tony1 or any other creationists actually dont believe evolution, they dont have to, but if they want they can at least try to understand it. People with a PhD should have a better knowledge of the field than creationists who believe creationism only because they were told.




    And to Caixinth; we can all be better people. everybody has Temper flares. I know people can take my words the wrong way, but in becoming a better person we have to use our third eyes to see the big picture. All of us.
    If you think this is heated you aint seen nothing yet. This is the atmosphere I love.

    Happy posting.
     
  10. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    I was going to respond to Tony’s post by once again researching the web for information from legitimate sources so that I could offer well thought out and strongly supported explanations for each and every question. But after reading your response Elbaz, I now see that no matter how many scientific justifications I offer or how well backed my arguments are you and the rest of the sciforums “believers” are not going to be persuaded. We’re extremists on either sides of conflicting ideologies and you’ve made it abundantly clear that you and your crew have no interest in debating the points of contention in this debate in anything resembling a mature, sensible matter.

    The fact alone that we post on this particular board is proof enough that we’re eager to discuss and defend our ideologies. I was doing my best to offer arguments in a way that we might possibility learn something from one another. As you’ve so callously informed me that’s not the way things run around here. I offered factual data to back my arguments, and the religion forum responded with attacks against biology that showed a lack of even a basic understanding of the subject. Top that off with homepages with x-files theme music in the background as source material, and of course the varied attacks on my character. It seems I haven’t been conversing with the open, honest, and intellectual group of people I thought I was, and now its time to end this farce. Elbaz you in particular are a disappointing person. With the exception of your most recent post where you offered two glib sentences in response to my many arguments you haven’t even made a single point about anything being discussed in this thread. I challenge you to read all of your posts, I have, and in every one you spend your time discussing me as a person, who I am, and what I know or more specifically what I don’t know. Most amazingly of all, you then accuse me of doing everything you’ve just done. I think you’re actually accusing me… of being you. Well let me assure you Elbaz, I am not like you. Everything I’ve said in this thread has been sincere.
     
  11. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Xelios
    Our rate of new discoveries has grown exponentially in the past 100 years. Something new is invented or discovered every day.
    *

    Therefore there is no God?

    *At the very least it will eliminate most disease and allow us to repair damage to our bodies in a fraction of the time it would take at the moment.*

    Presumably, when you say "our," you mean non-Christian.
    When Christians get healed, it is pretty much instantaneous, so doing things in a fraction of that would be really fast.

    *The current estimate on this technology is about 10-25 years from now.*

    I predict that the prediction will be the same 10-25 years from now.

    *I'd say that's quite a bit of control wouldn't you tony1?*

    Well, it would be, and it is in science fiction novels.

    *If given enough time, our race can acheive any technological feat imaginable, and then some.*

    The mind boggles at the concept of achieving unimagined goals, but never mind, I'm just thinking out loud.

    *Anything is possible. And when we get to the point where we can alter characteristics of the universe*

    I'm already at that point.
    Earlier today, I altered the characteristics of a small portion of the universe called "bacon and eggs."
    I altered it into fecal matter.

    *or even create our own planets and life forms, we ourselves would become gods if we so chose. It doesn't take much to say "I am your God, worship me" to an intelligent life form you created and have them believe you...*

    Note to self: purchase stock in sci-fi publishing houses.

    *Are you suggesting the prediction of Jesus Christ's return means nothing?*

    Not in the least.
    That would be an example of a true prediction.

    *There is always room for improvement, no matter how advanced our way of life gets. *

    Well, I have to admit that is the "silver lining" approach to the issue.
    The "dark cloud" approach would be that we never get there.

    *Originally posted by Elbaz
    Also, who here has a PhD in the field of biomedical engineering? You all claim to be experts.
    *

    No one here has made that claim.
    Once we past simple division where people can understand that a new base pair would have to appear out of nowhere every year for 3.8 billion years to evolve man, we might call upon an expert.

    *Anyway, as that guy said, there are lies damned lies and statistics. You can count the numbers and it sounds impossible.*

    You don't understand your own quote.
    Statistics is the art of making lies sound true.
    IOW, you count the numbers and it sounds very possible, but if you think for even a second, it isn't.

    *Base pairs can transform very fast. and new genes dont appear often. They're just scrambled. *

    Maybe they can, but they don't.

    *If tony1 or any other creationists actually dont believe evolution, they dont have to, but if they want they can at least try to understand it.*

    Evolution was all I was ever taught.

    *People with a PhD should have a better knowledge of the field than creationists who believe creationism only because they were told.*

    Oh yes, people who were told about evolution understand much better than those who were told about something else.

    And yes, you are right, people with a PhD should have a better knowledge of the field than people who don't, but something went wrong.
    Where evolution is concerned, PhD's appear to work backwards.
     
  12. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Field day

    You almost make it too easy tony1...

    Wow, you mean when you fall and break your arm it heals instantly? Would you mind sharing this with the rest of the world?
    Point?
    I see your mind may be too narrow to see this in the bigger perspective, so let me try and clarify. By characteristics I mean things like particle charges, the strength of the forces, the speed of light, the amount mass bends space etc.
    Once again, an insult. It seems to be the only way you believers can support your theory of God, by either trying to disprove the other side's theory or reasoning, or when you see there really isn't a flaw in their statement, you resort to insults.
    No, it wouldn't. There is no evidence supporting it, therefor it is not proven true. I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try wishing it to be true will not make it so.
    Well tony1, isn't that what you've been suggesting all along about believers in God?
     
  13. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    Re: Field day

    *Originally posted by Xelios
    You almost make it too easy tony1...
    *

    It is easy, that's the whole point.

    For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
    (Matthew 11:30, KJV).

    *Wow, you mean when you fall and break your arm it heals instantly? Would you mind sharing this with the rest of the world?*

    What's to share?
    The broken arm thing is a problem in itself, though.
    I've never broken anything, so I wouldn't know about it.
    Broken bones appear to be your problem, not mine.

    God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
    (Numbers 24:8, KJV).

    *Point?*

    This awesome control you speak of is found only in science fiction novels to date.

    *By characteristics I mean things like particle charges, the strength of the forces, the speed of light, the amount mass bends space etc.*

    Sure, while you are changing the speed of light, I'll have bacon and eggs.
    We'll see who changes more characteristics of the universe.

    *Once again, an insult....you resort to insults.*

    Me buying shares in a scifi publishing house is an insult to you?
    You are thin skinned.

    *No, it wouldn't. There is no evidence supporting it, therefor it is not proven true. I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try wishing it to be true will not make it so.*

    You're right, of course.
    Wishing does not make it so.
    It is still an example of a true prediction, though.
    If it had evidence proving it, it wouldn't be a prediction.

    *Well tony1, isn't that what you've been suggesting all along about believers in God? *

    I'm puzzled.
    Have I been "suggesting" things?
    If I have, Godless is losing his cool over "suggestions."

    In any case, it is one thing to uncritically accept every evolutionary fable that comes along.
    It is something altogether different to see the sky and the earth and to read this...

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    (Genesis 1:1, KJV).

    No one has proven that wrong.
    There is a lot of contrary speculation, admittedly.
     
  14. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Neither have I, but I see you cannot understand this analogy so let me set up a simpler one. When you cut yourself you are healed instantly? No? That's what I thought, thus:
    is nothing but more of your nonsense.
    Yes, and if you had read my post carefully you will have understood that I was implying this would happen in the near future. So you're right, at the moment it is science fiction, but not for much longer.
    Yes, and while you're sitting there eating your eggs, the rest of the human race will be advancing technologically, biologically and spiritually. Have fun.
    A prediction cannot be true but at the same time unproved. A true prediction means one that has in fact happened.
    No one has proven evolution wrong either, so your arguement is mute. But yes, I agree it is something different altogether to see everything around you and believe someone created it... I guess that's what being high must feel like.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2001
  15. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Xelios
    Neither have I, but I see you cannot understand this analogy so let me set up a simpler one. When you cut yourself you are healed instantly? No?
    *

    Heh heh
    Let me see.
    When was the last time I cut myself?
    I can't remember.

    *That's what I thought, thus:*

    You thought something else.
    I've seen the deaf get their hearing, I've seen broken bones mend in a split second, I've seen brain tumors disappear.
    You haven't, so you think it doesn't happen.

    *Yes, and if you had read my post carefully you will have understood that I was implying this would happen in the near future. So you're right, at the moment it is science fiction, but not for much longer.*

    I read it carefully enough to see you were implying that.
    It'll still be science fiction.

    *Yes, and while you're sitting there eating your eggs, the rest of the human race will be advancing technologically, biologically and spiritually. Have fun.*

    You're actually claiming to be able to change the speed of light and you think I have superpowers?
    Don't forget to pack a lunch, you could be a while.

    *A true prediction means one that has in fact happened. *

    Lost: one mind.
    A prediction predicts the future, not the past.
    A true prediction is one that is going to happen.

    I can understand your confusion, given the large number of psychic hotline commercials on TV.

    *No one has proven evolution wrong either, so your arguement is mute.*

    You have a point.
    No one has proven stupidity wrong, either.

    *But yes, I agree it is something different altogether to see everything around you and believe someone created it... I guess that's what being high must feel like. *

    Being high is what you feel like.
    I've been there, thinking that some idle speculation is the truth.
    High is thinking that everything appeared out of nowhere by itself, even though nothing ever has.
     
  16. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Man, you must be perfect... you know my point, and if you would stop acting like a 5 year old and adress it we could move on.
    1. Yeah, it's called a hearing aid.
    2. No.. you haven't.
    3. Yes, the body does have a natural resilliancy doesn't it?
    I once saw a person explode then come back together again as if nothing happened. But you haven't, so you think it doesn't happen.
    Anyway, lets come back to reality now shall we?
    So will God.
    Once again, I seem to have lost you. I never said I could change the speed of light, I merely stated that one day we will be able to. Either try and keep up or stop posting.
    And who decides if a prediction is true? You? You can't know for certain it will happen until it does.
    Again, you can't find a counterarguement so you resort to insults. How about next time you save yourself the energy and just not write anything?

    I won't even try to respond to your last "point" because it's not worth it, all you did was turn the statement onto evolution. Lets try and stay orginal here shall we?

    P.S. Although we can easily change the speed of light to as low as 38 mph today, I didn't feel it was worth mentioning as it involves changing the space the light is moving through, rather than altering it's very characteristics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2001
  17. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    this place is a nut house. the conversation i just read between tony and xelios was absurd. how old are you people?
     
  18. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Heh, it was 1 am when I was writing that stuff, it's bound to be nuts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm 16.
     
  19. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    would you say most people on this board are around your age?
     
  20. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    The speed of the light is constant in a fixed medium. However, the actual speed of the light is different between vacuum, air, glass, and water. So you can changes the speed of the light by letting it pass thought different mediums.

    Now back the prediction joke. A cool dude predicted Jesus will return 2001 years ago. An engineer predicted that the transistors inside a CPU is roughly double every 18 months twenty years ago. Now let's look at the results. The cool dude's prediction never realized after 2001 years. I guess he didn't mind to wait another 2001 years. On the other hand, the engineer's prediction is realized roughtly every 18 months since the birth of Intel 8086 CPU.

    I guess 2001 years of waiting is not long enough for some people to realized the joke.
     
  21. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Xelios
    Man, you must be perfect... you know my point, and if you would stop acting like a 5 year old and adress it we could move on.
    *

    I know your point and you're not making it.
    I've had stuff wrong with me and it gets healed instantly.
    You think that doesn't happen.
    Too bad for you.

    *1. Yeah, it's called a hearing aid.*

    Lame.

    *2. No.. you haven't.*

    I have, and you haven't.
    Your teachers probably told you that kind of stuff can't happen, and you believed them.

    *I once saw a person explode then come back together again as if nothing happened. But you haven't, so you think it doesn't happen.*

    I believe that nothing happened in your example.

    *Anyway, lets come back to reality now shall we?*

    Sure, I'll see you when you get here.

    *I merely stated that one day we will be able to.*

    You don't seem to be able to understand that saying that means that in principle you can do it.
    You can't, even in principle.
    Try and keep up or stop posting.

    *Again, you can't find a counterarguement so you resort to insults. How about next time you save yourself the energy and just not write anything?*

    Well, has anyone proven stupidity wrong?
    That isn't an insult.

    *I won't even try to respond to your last "point" because it's not worth it, all you did was turn the statement onto evolution. Lets try and stay orginal here shall we?*

    I'm waiting for your "original" comments.
    Feel free to post them any time.
    If you'd look closely, I didn't turn the statement onto evolution, the statement stands alone.

    *Although we can easily change the speed of light to as low as 38 mph today, I didn't feel it was worth mentioning as it involves changing the space the light is moving through, rather than altering it's very characteristics. *

    You have a point there.
    I actually changed the speed of light to zero by placing a piece of wood in front of a flashlight, following the same kind of reasoning.
    However, you did claim to be able to change those characteristics, not personally, but in principle.

    *Originally posted by daktaklakpak
    So you can changes the speed of the light by letting it pass thought different mediums.
    *

    Einstein should have met you guys.
    If he had, the theory of relativity would have been very different.

    If I understand you two guys correctly, E=mc^2 would change, and a person could mitigate the effects of a nuclear explosion by wrapping the bomb with a black cloth.

    Too bad the Japanese didn't know that in WWII.
     
  22. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Basically tony1, you are once again picking apart trivialities in statements and posting more of your nonsense you seem to be so fond of. When you get cut, it does not heal instantly. Simple as that. I don't know what's wrong with you, but you seem to think you are God.

    Once again, you are picking apart trivialities in my statement. The changing of the characteristics of light was merely an example, you could be right and we may find we can never alter it, though I doubt it. My point was that the only limit to what we can acheive technologically is time.

    And just to clarify for you, when you put the piece of wood in front of your flashlight, you are not stopping the light, only changing it's trajectory.

    I will not respond to any other one of your statements because there is nothing to respond to.
     
  23. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    You don't think light speed changes in different medium?

    Here is a tip for you in case you missed it in your middle school class.

    http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com/refractive-index.html

    Here is further infos on slowing light speed.

    http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com/question-set-3.html

    Recent record on slowing light.

    http://focus.aps.org/v3/st37.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2001

Share This Page