The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is just my opinion on some stuff. Which side do you favor - scientific or religious route? Foreword: This, which I am about to type isn’t science-fiction nonsense. Much of what is written is based on scientifically proven fact, and the rest is my opinion. Using a combination of the two, a reasonably non-contradictory explanation can hopefully be created. Right.
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
Page:
cookie monster wrote:
> No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various
> atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning. During the
> mass lightning storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the
> elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen. As we know these are
> found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These
> conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
That is entirely incorrect, I have recently been studying this subject. The laboratories have tried many times and they have come up with reasonable results as they managed to recreate some of the genes and cells that make up our bodies. They cannot however create anything that can continue living as all the cells are mixed up and there are many additional ones that the bodies cannot live with.
Also don't forget that the laboratories are always in the perfect conditions for creating living cells, the earth changes constantly.
What are the chances of:
1) All the temparatures, atmospheric conditions, humidity etc. all being exactly correct.
2) Lightning striking this matter at just the same time
3) These bunch of living cells somehow turn themselves into a life-form that has myriads of complex features such as eyes, nose, stomach, brain, liver, sex organs etc.
4) This tiny piece of living matter surviving without any of these until they had formed properly. ie. spending many centuries without food, water, etc. Because as far back as we can tell, life has always needed sustinence.
And don't say that they 'absorbed' it, because that's as much a complex feature as any other body part.
The chances that all this happened, one or two miniscule living cells turning itself into a human being is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.
> No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various
> atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning. During the
> mass lightning storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the
> elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen. As we know these are
> found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These
> conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
That is entirely incorrect, I have recently been studying this subject. The laboratories have tried many times and they have come up with reasonable results as they managed to recreate some of the genes and cells that make up our bodies. They cannot however create anything that can continue living as all the cells are mixed up and there are many additional ones that the bodies cannot live with.
Also don't forget that the laboratories are always in the perfect conditions for creating living cells, the earth changes constantly.
What are the chances of:
1) All the temparatures, atmospheric conditions, humidity etc. all being exactly correct.
2) Lightning striking this matter at just the same time
3) These bunch of living cells somehow turn themselves into a life-form that has myriads of complex features such as eyes, nose, stomach, brain, liver, sex organs etc.
4) This tiny piece of living matter surviving without any of these until they had formed properly. ie. spending many centuries without food, water, etc. Because as far back as we can tell, life has always needed sustinence.
And don't say that they 'absorbed' it, because that's as much a complex feature as any other body part.
The chances that all this happened, one or two miniscule living cells turning itself into a human being is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.
nh wrote:
> Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning. During the mass lightning storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen. As we know these are found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
> Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
No, it has been proven that when the earth was in its infancy various atmospheric conditions existed, most notably lightning. During the mass lightning storms sufficent energy was produced to combine the elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitogen. As we know these are found in all protiens, which make up all of our bodies. These conditions can be replecated in a laboratory.
nh wrote:
> One of the points that has been raised in this discussion is that it
> is easy to use scientific theories to prove and disprove the very same
> point. The second law of thermodynamics is used consistently by
> Creationists and Evolutionists alike. My main objection to this is
> that the law is twisted much like any other law to suit where
> necessary.
This is only the case because the second Law is incorrectly used by creationists in an attempt to ‘fight fire with fire’. The analogy that you’ve quoted about the car is misleading, as atoms do not behave in the same way as rusted car parts. The other common quote is ‘A watch must have a watch maker’. Watches and cars do not occur naturally, unlike chemical compounds. The ones that are specifically man made are not required for life to exist, the ones that do, again, to labour the point, occur naturally on this planet and no doubt countless others.
nh also wrote:
This line of yours is a classic example.
You state that an intelligent being, using the knowledge that they have obtained is capable of combining molecules together under laboratory conditions to create a more complex molecule.
Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
Not if you are simulating a natural process it isn’t. Man/Woman has ‘played god’ and created compounds that do not occur naturally, this does not mean that everything on this planet was synthesised artificially.
> One of the points that has been raised in this discussion is that it
> is easy to use scientific theories to prove and disprove the very same
> point. The second law of thermodynamics is used consistently by
> Creationists and Evolutionists alike. My main objection to this is
> that the law is twisted much like any other law to suit where
> necessary.
This is only the case because the second Law is incorrectly used by creationists in an attempt to ‘fight fire with fire’. The analogy that you’ve quoted about the car is misleading, as atoms do not behave in the same way as rusted car parts. The other common quote is ‘A watch must have a watch maker’. Watches and cars do not occur naturally, unlike chemical compounds. The ones that are specifically man made are not required for life to exist, the ones that do, again, to labour the point, occur naturally on this planet and no doubt countless others.
nh also wrote:
This line of yours is a classic example.
You state that an intelligent being, using the knowledge that they have obtained is capable of combining molecules together under laboratory conditions to create a more complex molecule.
Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
Not if you are simulating a natural process it isn’t. Man/Woman has ‘played god’ and created compounds that do not occur naturally, this does not mean that everything on this planet was synthesised artificially.
Once again I find myself agreeing with IB ;-)
Doesn't that just show the enormous intelligence of the individual who inspired the writers ???
Doesn't that just show the enormous intelligence of the individual who inspired the writers ???
Where scientific theories can be bent to suit each purpose, it must be said also that the bible is re-interpreted depending on the question asked to create a suitable answer.
The bible deserves a great amount of respect for the way it was written - difficult to prove wrong because it can be interpreted in so many ways. Much the same as Nostradamas, who's prophecies have almost all "come to pass" but largely because they were imprecise, and open to interpretation.
The bible deserves a great amount of respect for the way it was written - difficult to prove wrong because it can be interpreted in so many ways. Much the same as Nostradamas, who's prophecies have almost all "come to pass" but largely because they were imprecise, and open to interpretation.
Hooplah wrote:
Simple molecules are easy to form,
> most people do this in Chemistry at school at least once.
One of the points that has been raised in this discussion is that it is easy to use scientific theories to prove and disprove the very same point. The second law of thermodynamics is used consistently by Creationists and Evolutionists alike. My main objection to this is that the law is twisted much like any other law to suit where necessary.
This line of yours is a classic example.
You state that an intelligent being, using the knowledge that they have obtained is capable of combining molecules together under laboratory conditions to create a more complex molecule.
Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
Simple molecules are easy to form,
> most people do this in Chemistry at school at least once.
One of the points that has been raised in this discussion is that it is easy to use scientific theories to prove and disprove the very same point. The second law of thermodynamics is used consistently by Creationists and Evolutionists alike. My main objection to this is that the law is twisted much like any other law to suit where necessary.
This line of yours is a classic example.
You state that an intelligent being, using the knowledge that they have obtained is capable of combining molecules together under laboratory conditions to create a more complex molecule.
Surely this experiment is proof of creation and not evolution ?
Been a while since I’ve posted anything on these boards, nice to see there’s some intelligent conversation still around though.
There’s a couple of points regarding your last post nh that I’d like to pick up on, so I’ll start from the top.
Evolution as a theory does not suggest a widespread mutation of life from one stage to the next, from single cell life to multi-cell organisms and so on, merely a chance mutation within a certain population. The reason that you can still find single cell life throughout the fossil record is that it is an incredibly simple and efficient form of life. There’s also plenty of multi-cell organisms in the fossil record, it is the theory of evolution that links these organisms together. Evolution can appear to have many inconsistencies as a theory, but piecing together such a huge puzzle is an immense task – try buying the biggest jigsaw you can lay your hands on and complete it without looking at the picture on the front. That should go a small way towards gaining an understanding of how complicated a question the origin of species is.
The second law of Thermodynamics does allow for constituent parts to spontaneously form more complex molecules, as the energy of most of the matter that makes up this planet and the universe has a lower energy state than it’s constituent elements. This means that, contrary to popular belief the Second law of Thermodynamics firmly supports the spontaneous formation of lower energy state molecules from the collision of it’s elements. All Entropy demands is that the energy is spread out.
This is not to say that it is easy to makes these molecules (approximately 20,000,000 conform to this), Thermodynamics is all about states of energy and not routes of synthesis. If you know what you are doing then it is possible. Simple molecules are easy to form, most people do this in Chemistry at school at least once. More complex molecules, such as DNA require considerably more effort and understanding, one that we are only just beginning to grasp.
I hate to say it, but the use of the second law of thermodynamics is one of the more common themes used (incorrectly) by creationalists in an attempt to rubbish evolution.
There’s a couple of points regarding your last post nh that I’d like to pick up on, so I’ll start from the top.
Evolution as a theory does not suggest a widespread mutation of life from one stage to the next, from single cell life to multi-cell organisms and so on, merely a chance mutation within a certain population. The reason that you can still find single cell life throughout the fossil record is that it is an incredibly simple and efficient form of life. There’s also plenty of multi-cell organisms in the fossil record, it is the theory of evolution that links these organisms together. Evolution can appear to have many inconsistencies as a theory, but piecing together such a huge puzzle is an immense task – try buying the biggest jigsaw you can lay your hands on and complete it without looking at the picture on the front. That should go a small way towards gaining an understanding of how complicated a question the origin of species is.
The second law of Thermodynamics does allow for constituent parts to spontaneously form more complex molecules, as the energy of most of the matter that makes up this planet and the universe has a lower energy state than it’s constituent elements. This means that, contrary to popular belief the Second law of Thermodynamics firmly supports the spontaneous formation of lower energy state molecules from the collision of it’s elements. All Entropy demands is that the energy is spread out.
This is not to say that it is easy to makes these molecules (approximately 20,000,000 conform to this), Thermodynamics is all about states of energy and not routes of synthesis. If you know what you are doing then it is possible. Simple molecules are easy to form, most people do this in Chemistry at school at least once. More complex molecules, such as DNA require considerably more effort and understanding, one that we are only just beginning to grasp.
I hate to say it, but the use of the second law of thermodynamics is one of the more common themes used (incorrectly) by creationalists in an attempt to rubbish evolution.
It comes down to where we do and dont use our current understanding of science to support our theories and where we ignore it altogether.
The basic premise of evolution is that somehow a few elements randomly came together and spontaneously formed life. This newly formed life slowly evolved into what we call Protozoa which then slowly over many millions of years evolved into various different animals, birds, trees, plants etc.
The first way that this argument falls down is from the fossil record which produces protozoa in exactly the same state over many millenium, none of which show any kind of even miniscule alteration.
The second law of thermodynamics basically covers the process whereby all inanimate matter in the physical universe eventually breaks down into it's constituent parts with the passage of time. The reverse of this law is that inanimate matter never spontaneously organises itself into more complex forms which is basically what what the theory of evolution is stating, thereby disagreeing with one of our basic scientific principals.
This basically means that either the theory of evolution or the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. It's up to the scientific community to decide which one.
The basic premise of evolution is that somehow a few elements randomly came together and spontaneously formed life. This newly formed life slowly evolved into what we call Protozoa which then slowly over many millions of years evolved into various different animals, birds, trees, plants etc.
The first way that this argument falls down is from the fossil record which produces protozoa in exactly the same state over many millenium, none of which show any kind of even miniscule alteration.
The second law of thermodynamics basically covers the process whereby all inanimate matter in the physical universe eventually breaks down into it's constituent parts with the passage of time. The reverse of this law is that inanimate matter never spontaneously organises itself into more complex forms which is basically what what the theory of evolution is stating, thereby disagreeing with one of our basic scientific principals.
This basically means that either the theory of evolution or the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. It's up to the scientific community to decide which one.
Nh, I have to completely disagree with your argument about the Entropy = no evolution argument. The argument makes no sense! Could you please go over it?
Sonic
Sonic
Thanks Jonman - thats one reason why I like this forum, its the one where you can actually have a decent discussion about things.
Page: