Man United NSR Politics thread

[Stud83]

Just asking.. what are the chances that God created the Universe?

It's 50-50. He either did create it... or he didn't. :p

[StrikerCW]

It's 50-50. He either did create it... or he didn't. :p
You and littleman bring up a good point.

Evolution (big bang) as it stands currently has a small chance of being actually try considering how much you would have to prove to make it a certainty.

Whereas with ID, you can NEVER prove it exists (unless Jesus/whoever happens to be the true one) comes down and sets things straight.. Therefore the creationists have it easier than science believers. God exists or no. 50:50 Evolution as we think or millions upon millions of other possibilities that haven't even been thought of about how the universe started. We could even be going down the entirely wrong path toward the truth (not saying we are) and we would never know...

[littleman]

It's 50-50. He either did create it... or he didn't. :p

It's also 50-50 whether I created the universe :eek:

[SirManchester]

SirManchester, are you a biology or physics major by any chance?

I actually agree mostly with johno's points. People that don't believe in intelligent design believe that life on earth originated... well, out of lifeless matter. And there hasn't been a single experiment proving that that may be the case. In fact, the probability of life originating from lifeless matter is 1/(1 followed by 200 zeros). And the last time I checked the only thing appeared out of lifeless matter was Pinocchio.
As one scientist once said, the probability of life originating byaccident is comparable to the probability of the new dictionary appearing from an explosion in a printing shop. So you either believe in intelligent design or you believe that a book may be created by an explosion in a store with a bunch of newspapers. What is more believable?

I'm not a physics nor a biology major, however the topic is one of my favorites and I like to read up on it and stay up to date in my spare time.
And you're wrong, critics of ID don't neccessarily believe life originated from nothing, that's just another common miconception. Another one is that science and religion have to be clashing forces. No one said that if you're religious you have to be against science, and the other way around.
There are several problems with ID as a scientific theory:
- advocates of ID state that it is based upon positive evidence and not just "gaps" in our understanding, they do not present clear criteria by which this evidence can be recognized.
- ID advocates have proposed no objective definition of "irreducible complexity" or method for testing for its existence. ID advocates, furthermore, ignore hypotheses that features of organisms may change their function as evolution proceeds, and this intermediate forms can be highly functional, which has long been a theme in evolutionary biology.
- ID arguments focus on our current inability to propose adequate evolutionary explainations for particular features of organisms, and thus on the extent of scientific knowledge at the time, ignoring the obvious fact that scientific knowledge and understanding are continuously growing.
- advocates of ID maintain that their view does not require God to be the designer, but this is ingenuous. a supernatural creator/designer of the sort they need is a god in all but name, and the roots and background of the movement are clearly religious.
-ID is part of a larger movement, the stated goal of which is to fundementally alter the nature of science and society by removing materialism and making supernaturalism and religion legitimate parts of science. ID is not science as we know and have used it for the past five centuries; it is religion.

Ultimately, arguers of ID favor "teaching the controversy" between ID and evolution in science classrooms.

[StrikerCW]

Let me ask you SM, where do you think it came from ? Life in the beginning that is. Or did you already answer this?

[SirManchester]

Let me ask you SM, where do you think it came from ? Life in the beginning that is. Or did you already answer this?

Yea I answered it when I was five, in my sleep. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't know, nobody knows but scientists are working towards getting the answer. Keyword: "working", as opposed to religious kooks and ID advocates who just like to assume and talk.
I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be a greater force who maybe had something to do with the Big Bang, but again, scientists are working on that. And Science (I hate to repeat myself) have made amazing progress towards this, which is more than I can say for religion or ID who do no work whatsoever. Science deals with the materialistic aspect of our reality, and is based on hard evidence which can be proven. Religion should just deal with the spiritual aspect instead of assuming about the origin of life.

[Stud83]

It's unfair to corner naturalistic believers with this sort of opinion. For one, there are MANY things in science that have taken decades to prove.. for years there was a tussle between whether light was a wave or particle, since it behaved like either when tested as such. Many theories in science have been ridiculed when it first came into public domain; not forgetting Darwin's theory of evolution. Copernicus got the spank from his govt too. It is ridiculous to say that, because at the CURRENT point in time, that we have no scientific theory to fill in the gaps, that the gap must be filled with God.

Also, extraordinary matters come out of extraordinary circumstances. If there is even a remote chance that abiogenesis can occur, then there is reasonable doubt. Also, I don't find your advocation of an intelligent designer ANY MORE PROBABLE than an "unlikely" (to the extent of almost impossible) event. How is an intelligent designer, eternal, and such a more believable concept than abiogenesis? We then boil down to the problem of whether God is feasible, and the debate of God.. bringing us into another hellhole.



No, all I'm trying to point out is that if you believe in abiogenesis, you believe in miracles. And it's not a stretch to say that if you believe in God, you also believe in miracles. So essentially at this point both theories are very improbable. And thus, one theory should not be forced down the throats of children - i don't see any problems with having elective ID classes in high schools, which explains the unlikliness of scientific explanation and presents an alternate point of view. The fact is - we don't know how life originated and most likely will never find out. Although I don't see any problem with believing in evolution AND beliveing that life did not originate from lifeless matter.
By the way, did you know that 40% of scientists believe in God? (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5090&en=a7fec44c68be1f25&ex=1282449600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

[Numquam Moribimur]

GOD just went click :cool:

[SirManchester]

No, all I'm trying to point out is that if you believe in abogenesis, you believe in miracles. And it's not a stretch to say that if you believe in God, you also believe in miracles. So essentially at this point both theories are very improbable. And thus, one theory should not be forced down the throats of children - i don't see any problems with having elective ID classes in high schools, which explains the unlikliness of scientific explanation and presents an alternate point of view. The fact is - we don't know how life originated and most likely will never find out. Although I don't see any problem with believing in evolution AND beliveing that life did not originate from lifeless matter.
By the way, did you know that 40% of scientists believe in God? (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?ei=5090&en=a7fec44c68be1f25&ex=1282449600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

You make it seem as if science and ID are the same thing, and are both equally improbale. They are most definitely not! While ID couldn't prove gravity, science would do it, with hard evidence, for you to see, to experience and to understand. ID just tells you, nothing else.

[Howard Zinn]

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, "Who is that man?"
You try so hard
But you don't understand
Just what you'll say
When you get home

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, "How does it feel
To be such a freak?"
And you say, "Impossible"
As he hands you a bone

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You have many contacts
Among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To just give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations

You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW"
And you say, "For what reason?"
And he says, "How?"
And you say, "What does this mean?"
And he screams back, "You're a cow
Give me some milk
Or else go home"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

[Stud83]

And you're wrong, critics of ID don't neccessarily believe life originated from nothing, that's just another common miconception.
:confused: Please do show me where I said that. I never said anything about life originating from "nothing". I was only talking about lifeless matter. And if you are familiar with the subject, I'd like to hear precisely how the living matter originated, according to your research.


While ID couldn't prove gravity, science would do it, with hard evidence, for you to see, to experience and to understand. ID just tells you, nothing else.


I will repeat myself: I don't see any problem with believing in evolution AND believing that life did not originate out of lifeless matter. Especially considering that in mathematical terms that event (at least the current scientific explanation) is impossible.
Maybe that's why many scientists believe in God?

[StrikerCW]

He said that he was unsure and that eventually we will discover.

Also, how was it mathematically proven that something couldn't come from nothing? Statistics? You can say the same thing about ID. As I keep saying. Again, I point you to that experiment where the proteins were formed from gases that (theoretically) could have been present in Earth's early atmosphere. A number of coincodences would of course have to happen. It wouldn't be something that happens all the time. Of course now this gives ID people the reason to say that God put these coincidences together. Maybe so. Noone knows. Personally I think the Big Bang did occur and matter could have started out of nothing. Who is to say that a higher being did not get bored one day 12 billion years ago, and put a bunch of junk into a tiny ball and let it lose to have something to watch in his spare time. I think that is called Deism or something BTW. Not that I am one, but that is one thing that is possible.

[SirManchester]

:confused: Please do show me where I said that. I never said anything about life originating from "nothing". I was only talking about lifeless matter. And if you are familiar with the subject, I'd like to hear precisely how the living matter originated, according to your research.



I will repeat myself: I don't see any problem with believing in evolution AND believing that life did not originate out of lifeless matter. Especially considering that in mathematical terms that event (at least the current scientific explanation) is impossible.
Maybe that's why many scientists believe in God?

Sorry, I rushed through your response.(I'm currently writing a paper so I'm kinda distracted)
I said it before, nobody is certain on how matter originated, however, science is doing much more work getting to the answer and is much closer to it than any ID or religious notions. By the way, I'm not too familiar with this because it's so recent, but scientists have made some progression and are on the brink of something fascinating by creating something out of nothing. It's been worked on in CERN and has to do with anti-matter.
One thing that fascinates me is how some people are equating the theory of evolution with any ID or religious theories, they're not the same. Evolution is as real as the hand before you. It's occuring as we speak.

[Vermont Red]

I feel partially responsible for starting the creationism/evolution debate. Evolution is a scientific theory that can be tested in scientific experiments. Creationism (intelligent design) cannot be tested in a scientific experiment. This is not to say that it is right or wrong, only that it is not science. Some on this board may believe that God determines whether or not United wins a game. This may or not be true, but it is unprovable and would, therefore, be a waste of time to debate on this board. I could care less if schools teach creationism, as long as its not in a science class.

As for the racism discussion, every single white person raised in this country is a racist and it can't be helped. When almost every newspaper, magazine, TV show and movie promotes and reinforces the idea that people are inferior based on the color of their skin, it's impossible to have that idea not take hold in your mind.

[StrikerCW]

On change of subject. I know I would vote for Morgan Freeman as Govenor of Mississippi and also President.

[Vermont Red]

I'd vote for David Palmer for President.

[Stud83]

How abt Dennis Haysbert?

[StrikerCW]

The allstate guy. Ha.

Just think about Morgan Freeman and his narrating giving the State of the Union.

[Stud83]

The allstate guy. Ha.

Just think about Morgan Freeman and his narrating giving the State of the Union.

David Palmer is Dennis Haysbert :cool:

[SirManchester]

I feel partially responsible for starting the creationism/evolution debate. Evolution is a scientific theory that can be tested in scientific experiments. Creationism (intelligent design) cannot be tested in a scientific experiment. This is not to say that it is right or wrong, only that it is not science. Some on this board may believe that God determines whether or not United wins a game. This may or not be true, but it is unprovable and would, therefore, be a waste of time to debate on this board. I could care less if schools teach creationism, as long as its not in a science class.

As for the racism discussion, every single white person raised in this country is a racist and it can't be helped. When almost every newspaper, magazine, TV show and movie promotes and reinforces the idea that people are inferior based on the color of their skin, it's impossible to have that idea not take hold in your mind.

What can a creationism class possibly consist of?