May 21st so called doomsday thingy

[shroudening]

Unquestionable proof? Only mathematicians can give you that I'm afraid. However, one does not need "unquestionable proof" of something to know that it is most likely true. For example, do you believe that germs cause disease? Of course you do, since it would be foolish to believe otherwise. However, how can you provide an "unquestionable proof" of this right now? You can point to empirical evidence of course, that organism exposed to germs tend to get sick, and after the germs are killed, they tend to get better. This is not a proof, but the evidence is strong enough that anyone doubting it would be quite foolish. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but one must be open minded enough to look at the evidence. You're right in saying that scientists can't say whether something is absolutely true or not, only that the balance of probability suggests that so and so is true. So far, all the evidence we have found agrees with the theory of evolution (and there's LOTS), there hasn't been a single piece of evidence that contradicted it. Therefore, we accept it as fact. Anyhow, this is much better than creationism, which has absolutely no evidence in support of it whatsoever.

I see your point in unquestionable proof, and agree with it. What I was trying to say was more around the lines of that we can't say that even scientifically proven laws, and the systematics of the universe won't eventually change over huge quantities of time. I'm being theoretical here, I'm not trying to say that we can't reasonably prove something such as germs causing diseases or evolution.

It's 12:08 on Saturday, any earthquakes yet? xD

[Zanarkin]

God inspired man, prophets, to be particular, to write. God told them what to write. If it is merely delusion, then my delusion seems to be more of a benefit than harmful! Of course my beliefs must rely on the absolute truthfulness of the Bible! That's where faith comes in.

So you do trust the word of man. There is no way for you to know if it was God's inspiration, your only way to have faith is to trust in man's word which he calls God's words.

Now, let's go on the other side! How do you know Charles Darwin wasn't delusional when he proclaimed lesser organisms progressively became more complex organisms. You might say, "there is evidence in fossils", but that's up to interpretation. One must have faith that a said fossil really proves that one organism became another. How do you know that the fossil is just a variation of an already existing species, a certain breed that has since went extinct? Do fossils really prove that some fish eventually evolved into amphibians, then some amphibians to reptiles, then some reptiles to mammals and birds? Can it really be unquestionably proven?

No, it can't be unquestionably proven, but it can be proved to be rather accurate. See the thing with science is that it doesn't base itself on the willingness to believe in people, but it bases itself on observation and experimentation. The conclusion to these experiments give rise to new theories and/or the improvement of theories. Saying that fish evolved into an amphibian, which evolved into a reptile, which evolved into a mammal and birds is more logical than saying that a God said, "abra-kadabra" and it magically appeared. The theory of evolution is backed up by similarities between species, such as DNA, bone structure, development in the womb, and biochemistry.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

I see your point in unquestionable proof, and agree with it. What I was trying to say was more around the lines of that we can't say that even scientifically proven laws, and the systematics of the universe won't eventually change over huge quantities of time. I'm being theoretical here, I'm not trying to say that we can't reasonably prove something such as germs causing diseases or evolution.

It's 12:08 on Saturday, any earthquakes yet? xD

Hahaha that was actually an response to Kintenbo's post. And seeing as how most of the world has reached May 21st already, I think it can be safe to assume that there's no doomsday today.

[Parrhesia]

I heard it arrives around 6:00...and, well, it's 6:03pm in eastern Australia, and I negotiated my way into the Rapture by means of nachos, bribery and curry-induced gaseous fumes.

Y'all're probably fucked, though~

[Raven]

Today I'm going to enjoy doing fuck all.

I'm going to do the same tomorrow.

I'm also going to enjoy Christmas this year.

Fuck anyone or anything who says I won't be.

[Kintenbo]

Unquestionable proof? Only mathematicians can give you that I'm afraid. However, one does not need "unquestionable proof" of something to know that it is most likely true. For example, do you believe that germs cause disease? Of course you do, since it would be foolish to believe otherwise. However, how can you provide an "unquestionable proof" of this right now? You can point to empirical evidence of course, that organism exposed to germs tend to get sick, and after the germs are killed, they tend to get better. This is not a proof, but the evidence is strong enough that anyone doubting it would be quite foolish. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but one must be open minded enough to look at the evidence. You're right in saying that scientists can't say whether something is absolutely true or not, only that the balance of probability suggests that so and so is true. So far, all the evidence we have found agrees with the theory of evolution (and there's LOTS), there hasn't been a single piece of evidence that contradicted it. Therefore, we accept it as fact. Anyhow, this is much better than creationism, which has absolutely no evidence in support of it whatsoever.

If analogies help, consider this to be analogous to a court case, where a suspect is being prosecuted for murder. The suspect's fingerprints were found on the gun, his DNA was at the scene of the crime, there was even a video of him entering the victim's house before the murder happened. Is this proof that he killed the victim? No, because there's always the small chance that he got framed. However, any sane jury would find him guilty of the crime and put him into prison.

Hope this clears things up!

As for Darwin being delusional, it doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if he was on an acid trip when he came up with the theory. All that matters is that his theory is logical, supported by loads of evidence, and can explain many natural phenomena. That's what makes it a good theory, not the mental state of the person who came up with it.

The germ analogy is an example of something that can be observed directly. The evidence of evolution is merely an interpretation. A fossil can't speak, it can only give one an idea what, and who, were around before us. In order for the fossils to support evolution, one must first believe evolution true. It's just like with creationists and the approximate 6,000 year old Earth idea. The Bible must be true in order for that to work. It is reasoned that the worldwide flood during Noah's time is the answer to many of our geological questions. My city having experienced a flood recently, I saw firsthand how even a local flood can affect the landscape, and many in the South can probably reinforce that even better. Now, imagine what a world wide flood, with constant rain for 40 days and 40 nights, could do. I doubt during that time, the ground beneath the water was standing still, all sorts of things probably were happening. A whole bunch of plants and animals (yes, including dinosaurs) would be thrown everywhere, eventually being buried in the ground in a pretty violent manner. Yes, I know some fossils are found in relatively good condition, but a lot aren't exactly in one piece! Also, there would be all kinds of sediment depositing and erosion! The rock layers do have some evidence of rapid erosion, with flat, knife-like boundaries between many of them! So yes, creationists do have their own evidence of their ideas. Yes, just like those believing evolution rely on evolution being true, creationists must rely on the Bible, and thus the global flood, in order for it to work.

Also, to Jhen Mohran, the similarity of species and bone structure similarities could also be used to show God's practical planning. Each individual creature needs a certain format in order to do their function properly. Of course God would create bipedal primates in a similar fashion. It is just like how God would create 4 legged hooved beasts, 4 legged pawed beats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in a similar fashion. It's like trying to say, from the Creationist perspective, that similarities in bridge structures prove that all bridges are the same bridge. As for similarity in womb development, what? How does that prove evolution? Yeah, I heard some guy, I think Dr. Haeckel, try to say "its a throwback from our fish ancestors", but if I'm not mistaken, even evolutionists highly reject that idea. Once again, it could be used to prove God's practicality on how we all are formed, both man and animal.

So yeah, each of us do have our evidences, its just that we rely on that our presuppositions are true in order for it be true. We could all go back and forth all we want, but it will probably not get us too far. We all have means to defend our beliefs, but we can't make each other believe it also. We can try to persuade, but its ultimately up to the "persuadee" to decide what to think. I recognize this, but I find it hard to let the "Christians deny the truth" talk slide so easy.

[Zanarkin]

Also, to Jhen Mohran, the similarity of species and bone structure similarities could also be used to show God's practical planning. Each individual creature needs a certain format in order to do their function properly. Of course God would create bipedal primates in a similar fashion. It is just like how God would create 4 legged hooved beasts, 4 legged pawed beats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in a similar fashion. It's like trying to say, from the Creationist perspective, that similarities in bridge structures prove that all bridges are the same bridge.Fair argument i suppose.

As for similarity in womb development, what? How does that prove evolution? Yeah, I heard some guy, I think Dr. Haeckel, try to say "its a throwback from our fish ancestors", but if I'm not mistaken, even evolutionists highly reject that idea. Once again, it could be used to prove God's practicality on how we all are formed, both man and animal. I meant between species in the same genus. I should probably do more reading on it though, as i learned this in bio class.

So yeah, each of us do have our evidences, its just that we rely on that our presuppositions are true in order for it be true. Except you have to trust the word of man that He did it because apparently He inspired man. Science however can use observations and experimentation and can replicate those experiments to see that the other guy isn't lying or what not. With the bible you have to be faithful, there is no proof, just the bible and thats far from a reliable source... Atleast from my perspective.

We could all go back and forth all we want, but it will probably not get us too far. We all have means to defend our beliefs, but we can't make each other believe it also. We can try to persuade, but its ultimately up to the "persuadee" to decide what to think. I recognize this, but I find it hard to let the "Christians deny the truth" talk slide so easy. I guess its just like when an atheist says God doesn't exist infront of a Christian. They'll tell you something similar, "Atheist deny the divine truth."

[Fire Emblem Addict]

The germ analogy is an example of something that can be observed directly. The evidence of evolution is merely an interpretation. A fossil can't speak, it can only give one an idea what, and who, were around before us. In order for the fossils to support evolution, one must first believe evolution true. It's just like with creationists and the approximate 6,000 year old Earth idea. The Bible must be true in order for that to work. It is reasoned that the worldwide flood during Noah's time is the answer to many of our geological questions. My city having experienced a flood recently, I saw firsthand how even a local flood can affect the landscape, and many in the South can probably reinforce that even better. Now, imagine what a world wide flood, with constant rain for 40 days and 40 nights, could do. I doubt during that time, the ground beneath the water was standing still, all sorts of things probably were happening. A whole bunch of plants and animals (yes, including dinosaurs) would be thrown everywhere, eventually being buried in the ground in a pretty violent manner. Yes, I know some fossils are found in relatively good condition, but a lot aren't exactly in one piece! Also, there would be all kinds of sediment depositing and erosion! The rock layers do have some evidence of rapid erosion, with flat, knife-like boundaries between many of them! So yes, creationists do have their own evidence of their ideas. Yes, just like those believing evolution rely on evolution being true, creationists must rely on the Bible, and thus the global flood, in order for it to work.

Also, to Jhen Mohran, the similarity of species and bone structure similarities could also be used to show God's practical planning. Each individual creature needs a certain format in order to do their function properly. Of course God would create bipedal primates in a similar fashion. It is just like how God would create 4 legged hooved beasts, 4 legged pawed beats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in a similar fashion. It's like trying to say, from the Creationist perspective, that similarities in bridge structures prove that all bridges are the same bridge. As for similarity in womb development, what? How does that prove evolution? Yeah, I heard some guy, I think Dr. Haeckel, try to say "its a throwback from our fish ancestors", but if I'm not mistaken, even evolutionists highly reject that idea. Once again, it could be used to prove God's practicality on how we all are formed, both man and animal.

So yeah, each of us do have our evidences, its just that we rely on that our presuppositions are true in order for it be true. We could all go back and forth all we want, but it will probably not get us too far. We all have means to defend our beliefs, but we can't make each other believe it also. We can try to persuade, but its ultimately up to the "persuadee" to decide what to think. I recognize this, but I find it hard to let the "Christians deny the truth" talk slide so easy.

What's wrong with doing this by the way? You formulate a hypothesis and then you go about finding evidence in support of this hypothesis. If all the evidence agrees with it, then its likely to be true. If not, then you discard the idea or modify it. Just like for a apple falling off a tree to support the theory of gravity, we must first assume that gravity exists. No one in their right mind would doubt the existence of gravity, why doubt evolution? As for the Noah thing, what geological questions does it explain? The extinction of the dinosaurs? That was 65.5 million years ago. Noah was a human -- a primate. There is no evidence to suggest that humans existed 65.5 million years ago. Unless you can find me evidence to say that humans have been around for that long, this hypothesis is invalid.

As for attributing similarities between species to god -- yes one could do that. One could attribute anything to god should one want to. However, god isn't always the best or most likely explanation. A theory (in science a theory is just an idea that explains observations) is valued based on how much is assumed vs how much is explained. In this case, both Darwin and god explains the same thing, the similarities between species. For Darwin's hypothesis, all that needs to be assumed is that small, gradual changes will accumulate over time and cause bigger changes (this has been observed in bacteria by the way). Compare this to the assumption that the "god hypothesis" makes, which is that a sentient, omnipotent, being exists, and you will see that Darwin's theory assumes FAR less.

For example, let's assume that I called my friend and he didn't answer the phone and I come up with two hypotheses. The first is that his cell phone battery died, the second is that he was abducted by aliens. Both hypotheses explain the same thing, the reason why he did answer his cell. However, the first theory only assumes that he hasn't charged his cell battery for a while and it ran out while the second one assumes that 1) aliens exist, 2) they have visited Earth, 3) they are capable of abducting humans, 4) they decided to abduct my friend for some reason. Obviously, out of these two theories, any sane person would go with the first one. Why? Because it explains the same phenomenon with a lot less assumed. Of course, I don't know that he hasn't been abducted, all I can say is that the balance of probability suggests that he hasn't been abducted (just like I would say that the balance of probability suggests that god didn't create the different species). Therefore, why believe something that isn't likely to be true?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[Phoenix Wright]

What's wrong with doing this by the way? You formulate a hypothesis and then you go about finding evidence in support of this hypothesis. If all the evidence agrees with it, then its likely to be true. If not, then you discard the idea or modify it. Just like for a apple falling off a tree to support the theory of gravity, we must first assume that gravity exists. No one in their right mind would doubt the existence of gravity, why doubt evolution?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&no_interstitial

[Fire Emblem Addict]

http://www.nytimes.c...no_interstitial

Hmmm that's new.... Never heard about scientists who doubted the existence of gravity before.

Well from what I've read (yes I know its wikipedia but they referenced a paper published in Nature) it doesn't agree with observation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Critique Looks like its back to drawing board for this one! Not the first time that a mathematically sound model fails when it's put to the test.

[Aleph]

They're not really denying the existence of it. They're claiming that it's an emergent property rather than an independent one. You indeed cannot deny that things tend toward each other; you fucking see it.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

They're not really denying the existence of it. They're claiming that it's an emergent property rather than an independent one. You indeed cannot deny that things tend toward each other; you fucking see it.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself.

Kinda makes you think what physicists are on these days... But anyways, I think he was misquoted

Edited May 21, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[BK-201]

He gave support for that in his paper, so it's probably not misquoted.

Edited May 22, 2011 by BK-201

[I.M. Gei]

...well, it's 6:00 PM, Pacific Standard Time now.

I'm still alive.

[Replica Model]

Same here. I'm still alive as well.

[lolDeath]

I͋̃͑ͧ̍̒͝͏͈̹͇̘̜̗̜̙̦̮͚̪̻̱̀͟ͅ ̅̓ͯ̈ͪͬ҉̸͇͈̝̥̪̻̲̟͓̺̬̻͍̀͜ͅf̨̍̈́ͦͯ́̃̏̅̉͑̍̿̐ͥ̋̀̉̽̚͢҉̮̳͚͉͕̪͔e̸̤̯̲͈ͣ͊̑̈́ͨ͛̉ͤ̀e̮̺͕͚̺̳̳̩̤̥͉͚͔͓͓͗̊ͤ͐̀l̝͕̮̞͈̈́͑ͮ̈́̋͞͠ ̶̧̛̛̤̳̻̠̺̪͔̤̼̲̗̪̊̄̀̽̀̈̋ͫ͂͌̅̏k̯̺̺̟̳̖̪̺̲͔͙̹̥̟̬ͣ̒ͦ̃̋͐ͭͬ̉̇̒̄̈́ͨͤͫ͐͘͜͜i̸̐ͦ̐ͫ̐ͮͨ͂̆̃͏̟̟̱̹͈͇̝̬̤̙̤ǹ̵̵̡̰̼̱̥̉͌̓̉ͦ̄͐̈ͭ̊̏͌̒̚͝͞ͅd̴ͥ̎͒ͧͦͭ̀̀҉̖̮̲͍͇͖͞ ̢̤̼̹̯̻̪͎̖̱̻̭̥̝̬̟ͧ̌ͮ̀̽ͫ̿̅͋͞ͅo̵̡̧̼̬̦̙̤̭̫̮̞̞̹̪̮̲̽ͩ́̎ͯ́̌̅ͫ͗ͫ̾̚͢͟f̸͉̥͙̞͎̳̮̘̜̳̜̱̤̜͊͑́͊ͩ̾̄ͤ̓ͥ̀ ̽̈ͬ̋҉͏͙͈̬͖̝̲̤͉͙̖̤̖͙͕̬͟f̨͒̋̿͌ͫͨ̉̊҉̘̩͔͙̀ͅu̖̭̮͕̹̘͉̘̘͉̖̩͓̼̍̓̆̉ͫ̾ͫ̎̇̍ͨ̚̕̕͜n̬̩͔̘͂̈́ͭͬ̂̎̋ͦ͠͞ͅnͦ̓̿͌̓ͥͩ͘͏̣̲̬̮̦͔̥̪̝̥͈̠̙̤̕y̷̢̪͈̘̥̜̤̻̝͇̩͇̞͇̏͐̑͆́̈́ͮ̿͑̏̈̀.ͬͩͫ̆ͥ̄̑̆ͥ̓ͫͬ̐͑͊҉̡̲̠̦̠̯̻̱́͝͞

[NinjaMonkey]

I think I missed it...

Oh well, there's always next time (I believe it's the 22nd December of next year)

[Dr.Sholes]

That guy is gonna be so embarrassed tomorrow when everyone is gonna be like, "Yeah! You were wrong! The same way you were in '94 and 2000!!!(yep it's the same guy, only this time he had more supporters)"

[Fire Emblem Addict]

Nah, he'll make up some dumb excuse to cover up his behind (he probably already has one prepared since he knew it wasn't going to happen and that he was making stuff up to gain publicity).

[Celice]

It was a reaffirment, a sealing of our sinful ways. Today was the dreadful moment where our eternal fates were landlocked into oblivion. srsly

srsly

[Phoenix Wright]

It was a reaffirment, a sealing of our sinful ways. Today was the dreadful moment where our eternal fates were landlocked into oblivion. srsly

srsly

Why do you believe in God?

[Zanarkin]

Why do you believe in God?

It sounds like he was being sarcastic.

[Celice]

Why do you believe in God?

To sleep with the mayor's daughter.

[Phoenix Wright]

It sounds like he was being sarcastic.

I was joking, too. Due to Celice's comment below, I think he got it.

To sleep with the mayor's daughter.

[Celice]

Joking? No, I really am vying to bang the Mayor's daughter, and chastity waits for the God-ful man. Then is ripped to ex-virgin shreads.

Merci beaucoup, mon dieu